Hacker News Reader

Comment by novok | Hacker News Reader

I've heard similar things like that too. And the solution is relatively simple, good cause thing to do too, just donate blood one to 3 times a year.

It's just too bad that inside the agreements for blood donation for the red cross and vitalant they give themselves no-recourse, no-notice and no-further-consent needed dna testing, research rights and data storage rights to that blood. Which has stopped me from donating blood. And I can't find any other whole blood donation providers in my area other than those two. Super sketchy.

View on HN

Look up Canada and Red Cross they lost the right to blood handling. The tainted blood scandal of the mid 80s(?) some blood infected with HIV and Heoatitis C. Canadian Blood Services was formed after the scandal. I'd say USA Red Cross is super aware of such a thing happening there.

Also, homophobic policies.

Sorry, how?

In many jurisdictions homosexual men are barred from donating blood.

I think they mean the policy that many blood donation places adhere to that there is a waiting period after the last time a male/male relationship has sex (I think for red cross it is like 3 months) before specifically men who have sex with men can donate.

Personally I understand from a medical perspective why this could be a concern and I dont think it is inherently meant to be homophobic

It's a valid concern for everybody, so blood is screened for all sorts of stuff.

Someone recently infected with HIV can potentially pass it on to others whilst not being detectably infected. It makes sense to limit those who engage in high risk activities until sufficient time has passed that they will now test positive. The full criteria is here:

"You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.

You are at risk for getting infected if you:

have used needles to take any drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor in the last 3 months

are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, in the last 3 months

have taken money, drugs or other payment for sex in the last 3 months

have had sexual contact in the past 3 months with anyone described above"

https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/how-to-donate/eli...

> It makes sense to limit those who engage in high risk activities until sufficient time has passed that they will now test positive.

Yeah, but the policy doesn't include straight people, who are by now a higher-risk group. Which shows it's based on prejudice not safety.

Not to be gross here but I think a lot of this is lost in conversation because people shy away from the particulars. Vaginal and oral sex are rather ineffective at spreading HIV. There has been a rise in recent decades of HIV in African American women in particular, however it is known that this is due to an increase in that population of unprotected anal sex with a larger number of partners than previously. If they did this simply because they hate gay people why did they not include lesbian women?

I'd say a better policy would be excluding those who engage in nonmonogamous anal sex more generally, however I don't think the public has an appetite for that discussion.

> I don't think the public has an appetite for that discussion.

Judging by the quick downvote I got, I'd consider you correct.

Any man who has had sex with another man used to be unable to give blood in the US, due to federal regulations, because of the risk of HIV. The current regulation states: “Defer for 3 months from the most recent sexual contact, a man who has had sex with another man during the past 3 months.”

https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/how-to-donate/eli...

In many countries, you can't donate blood if you're a male homosexual (or are severely restricted for blood donation).

This has gotten better in the UK. I give blood regularly and the questionnaire now makes a distinction for monogamous homosexual relationships. It doesn’t impact me so I’m not sure if there’s some other hurdle to cross but I thought it was a good sign.

I've started donating blood a while ago, every time you have to fill in a questionnaire which includes questions about drug use and sex with men (or sex with women who have had sex with men who have had sex with men). I don't know the consequences of filling in a 'yes' on that one; it might just mean they will do an extra screening for STD's given a higher prevalence of STD's in the gay community (at least historically; I don't know if this is still a thing. I have heard of incidents where people go around poking people with a needle to try and intentionally give them HIV in gay clubs).

That said, you are also barred from donating blood here if you have been in the UK for 26 weeks or longer from 1980 - 1996 (e.g. you lived there or you went on vacation there for a total time of 26 weeks or more).

It was never homophobic. It was because there was a prevalent HIV epidemic amount homosexual men predominantly which influenced policy and rightly so. They couldn't reliably test the blood and promise they wouldn't spread it so they opted for the lowest risk possible. It made a lot of sense.

Maybe things look different today but those are some pretty good reasons for why it is the way it is today.

How does practicality mean that a policy isn't homophobic? This is actually one of the more clearly homophobic things I've ever seen. It's pretty clearly motivated by fear of men who have sex with men.

Most of the homophobic is used it's used to describe a situation where somebody isn't actually afraid of gay people.

It is justified fear based on the statistical disparity of HIV and sexual orientation. Why would anyone expect blood donor organizations to ignore this reality simply to accommodate someone's lifestyle and soothe their hurt feelings? I don't get what the positions is...they should ignore this and expose more people to health risk?

Yes this is essentially what the position is. Such people say that with modern testing we don’t need to filter out MSM but since all testing is fallible it’s pretty self evident this would lead to more HIV in the blood supply.

I think it actually is a legitimate argument though that the feels of the entire gay population is more important than the reals of the very small amount of HIV infections that would realistically happen just because one number is so much larger than the other and HIV is far less consequential than it was when this policy was enacted. People tend to be bias towards avoiding extreme outcomes over causing a much lesser outcome far more often. See: nuclear being perceived as more dangerous than fossil fuels.

In any case there’s so many more important issues out there than blood donation among men who have sex with men the entire dispute smacks of bikeshedding. People are both discriminated against far worse, and are killed far more often, by different issues. It matters very little if people have the wrong opinion on this issue relative to if they have the wrong opinion on different issues.

Why wouldn't they take appropriate cautionary action given the extreme statistical correlations of sexual orientation and HIV? They should ignore reality, and risk lives, because some people's feelings are hurt?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com