Is it ethical to lie in order to give blood?

[bluedragon4]

I always get pissed when I think about the prejudice of asking us that and than turning us away. Think of all the children and adults who have died because they did not want our blood. Better to be dead than to take blood from a gay man! Makes me sick.

 

[Robarob]

I gave blood fairly recently, and felt the same things as many have already said. I actually looked into the UK's donation rules and regs to find out exactly why their rules were in place. A lot of it seems to stem from statistical probabilities, which is why they will accept organs from 'active' gay men but not blood - organs are rarer and therefore the risk is deemed (more) acceptable. They had a review within the last year and decided that between the possibility of 'negative negatives' (people who have HIV which isn't picked up by the tests) and the ethos that one mistake (i.e. person receiving infected blood) is one too many they wouldn't change that criterion. Note that in the UK there's no 'before' date - it's a 'have you ever' question.

Also, and I realise it's a tiny distinction, but they're not specifically prejudiced against gay men, just gay men who've been sexually active. Ever.

Sadly, that's not a catalogue into which I currently fall, hence why I gave blood.

 

[pigface]

This is why I won't accept a transfusion from an anonymous donor - i.e. blood bank.
But before you yell at me, just take note of where i live.

 

[falconfan]

DonQuixote brings up a good point, they're not only asking questions about gay men, but about sexuality in general. Sure there could be things changed, but its nothing to go wack about and protest....

No they ARE Asking about gay men. They ask question about unprotected sex and needle usage as well as travel to highly infected areas, you know things that ACTUALLY INCREASE your risk of having STDs. But the gay question does not have any bearing on the likelihood of having AIDs. It's sad that we don't know simply having had gay sex doesn't make you more likely to have AIDs. Having unprotected sex does. Period. NO matter who with. And they've already asked that question.

 

[DonQuixote]

It would be nice to be able to do a better job, no question.
There, sadly, is the "public" perception as well. The public has to believe the blod supply is safe, too.

Look at poor Piggy - South Africa has a very real issue with safe blood.

BNGL, I've also asked if/when they will have the pc's networked so that they can scan my card and I can say, nothing has changed in the lase week,2, 2 months . . .
It is a pain, but I know they have to ask, and the lives I save might be my loved ones -hell, one attempted donation was what sent me off to a 2nd eeg, echo cardiogram, nuclear stress test, and on to an angioplasty. That pint saved 4 lives - I was one of them.

Unfortunately there are all kinds of thinking/unthinking people in the world. That's why a can of mixednuts carries a caution on it that says "Caution: contains nuts" - some assholes are really that stupid.

It's unfortunate, indeed, that they have to screen to the lowest common denominator.

Again, I urge you to write your elected officials in Washington -

 

[SonOfSlobone]

OK, turns out it's not only legal to ask if you're gay when you volunteer to donate blood, it's FDA policy. This has been in effect for 25 years.

Wikipedia says:

In the US, the current guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to permanently defer any male donor who has had sex with another man, even only once, in the period from 1977 to the present day. In 2006, the AABB, America's Blood Centers and American Red Cross recommended to the FDA that the deferral period for men who had sex with other men should be changed to be equivalent with the deferral period for heterosexual's judged to be at risk. The FDA chose to uphold the blood ban. Female sexual partners of MSM* are deferred for one year since the last exposure. This is the same policy used for any sexual partner of someone in a high risk group. The intent of these policies is to ensure that blood is collected from a population that is at low risk for disease, since the tests are not perfect and human error may lead to infected units not being properly discarded. The policy was first put in place in 1985.

Donors of what the FDA calls "HCT/P's", a category that includes transplants (other than organs) and some reproductive tissue, notably anonymous semen donations, are ineligible for five years after the most recent contact. UNOS policies for Organ donation require the hospital receiving the organ to be notified if the donor was an MSM within the past 5 years. The organs are generally used unless there is a clear positive test for a disease.

On August 19th, 2009 the Assembly Judiciary Committee in California passed AJR13, the U.S. Blood Donor Nondiscrimination Resolution, calling upon the FDA to end the gay blood ban.

*Men who have Sex with Men

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy#United_States

 

[DonQuixote]

Dear SOS,
Thank You for finding this and backing up what I have thought all along.

I, perhaps, approached my initial response to this thread wrong -- Please think of who the RECIPIENT of the blood is -- someone lying on an operating table who's lost a lot of blood from surgery, wounds, accidents, etc.

Their bodies are already fighting with everything they have just to survive. They have to have every possible advantage to fight to survive. Re-Read Piggy's note about what blood HE would accept.

Back to my original advice - WRITE your ELECTED OFFICIALS in DC.

 

[spencer]

IMO, unless you're tested before you give blood (with no contact with anyone) then you really don't know if you have HIV before giving blood.

At that point, I think you should be able to give blood.

Soooo, they should have HIV testing for everyone before giving blood. EVERYONE should know if they have HIV or not (they'll keep it confidential).


You can give blood and check the mark to reject it and they won't use it, but it doesn't point out out as having bad blood either.

 

[cockbrain]

Yes, it is unethical to lie in response to that question when your reason for giving is supposed to be charitable. (If the blood collection is for a payment, then it's also unethical to lie because in that situation you are misrepresenting the product that you are selling.)


I think we should be more vocal in protesting that criterion for blood donation, however, because, aside from the fact that it is out-and-out bigotry, it conveys the wrong message to donors: that HIV infection is only an issue for men who have sex with men.

Absurd, if the gays were on an equal footing with the rest of the world, then your argument would be sound. But we are not so it is not. Wow, you are either a liar or a bad logician or are they not mutually exclusive?

The lie would be where you misrepresent your hiv status. That is all.

 

[DonQuixote]

Unclean and Elvin1 are both right. And he's neither a liar nor a bad logician.

Petition your Federal Legislators - they can Whisper in FDA/NIH/CDC's ears to get regs updated to a more modern standard. The ARC and others have tried to get FDA to update the regs.

 

[LatinCoffee]

It's sad but true...that those of us who really would like to help others through our blood--can't. Oh well!

 

[DonQuixote]

I'll be donating triple platelets tomorrow.
One of the consolations for my position - the "curious" in my profile.

 

[irish1]

No, it is not ethical to lie, regardless of your intent (which, I am sure, is to do a good deed).

Why are we not answering this question:

Is it ethical to ask people personal questions about their private lives, or should we, just as a precaution, test ALL blood we receive from donors?

 

[DonQuixote]

They DO test all blood from all donors, but
a) tests aren't 100%
b) if they reduce number of throwaways, they save time and money.

 

[DonQuixote]

a) above is the published statement in the booklet all donors have to read before they get to the next step.

 

[Georgiadude]

This topic came up a while back and I posted a long explanation. Let me start by saying DON'T KILL THE MESSENGER and DON'T SEND ME ANGRY PM'S. I'm just explaining what I know.

I worked in a blood bank in Minneapolis for almost 2 years. Organizations such as the Red Cross and others that collect blood and it's various products are HEAVILY regulated by the FDA (USA). Blood and it's products are considered a drug and collection practices MUST follow extremely strict guidelines that are issued by the FDA. NO EXCEPTIONS. If they do not follow the regulations to the letter they can be shut down, fined or both. It doesn't matter who is in the white house, the policy has been in effect for over 20 years. The exclusion criteria seems to grow faster than the rabbit population. Every time we turned around something new was coming out. Recently travel to England was included do to "mad cow" disease. People that had been donating for years were told they could no longer donate. Travel to almost any African county as well as some areas of Mexico and Central America will get you a "temporary differal. These areas have mosquitoes that are infected with malaria. If you have been to one of these areas you are excluded for 1 year.

Ok. here we go. Yes. There are several questions about male/male sex. Simply being gay will not get you differed. Being gay and sexually active will. I know they are splitting hairs but thats the difference. You can still donate if you are gay however if you have had sex with another male the FDA considers you "high risk" and you are DQ'd. I had several gay men answer "no" to all of the sexual contact questions and they were allowed to donate. Were they lying, probably. Only they and God know the truth but they donated. These regulations were drawn up in the early 80's when testing methods were not as accurate. Government bureaucracy, fear and ignorance have kept these policies in effect for over 2 decades and not any administration, dem or repub is willing to take on the public fear and outrage.

Someone brought up organ/tissue/bone donation. Yes. The FDA is in charge as well. The family or "next of kin" is asked essentially the same questions and told to answer as best they can. The same exclusion criteria is used. Side Note: simply stating on your drivers license that you are an organ donor does not allow for the donation to occur. The family must give permission first. There has been changes to this in some states but for the most part it remains that way.

Hope that helps. I will try and answer questions as best I can. Like I said. PLEASE dont flame me. I didn't come up with these regulations and certainly didn't make the rules. The group I used to work for argued with the FDA over the "mad cow" issue and didn't get anywhere. They were told to either follow the rules or shut your doors.

 

[DonQuixote]

They have actually reduced the travel to UK aggregate a bit. Total of more than 6 months total travel there in earlier period. More recent travels to UK aren't DQ'd as readily.

I'll try to get a copy of current language tomorrow night so I can accurately post the questions for y'all.

 

[dilligas69]

I also gave recently in California, and yes those questions are there... then they also give you two Bar code stamps.. yes use my blood, no dont use my blood. You place the correct stamp on the paperwork. I think this is there way to collect it, but let those that have to be honest back out without others knowing...

 

[sabot3ur]

I love how it's not discrimination against gays, just say.. any gay man that's had sex. ever.

that statement makes my head explode.

 

[Georgiadude]

I also gave recently in California, and yes those questions are there... then they also give you two Bar code stamps.. yes use my blood, no dont use my blood. You place the correct stamp on the paperwork. I think this is there way to collect it, but let those that have to be honest back out without others knowing...

The FDA requires that the donor be given an option to have their blood pulled from the shelves anonymously . There are many different ways blood banks have devised to give people the option. It's not only for those that change their minds but lets say the next day you start getting sick. You can call the number given and have it pulled. No questions asked.

I used to donate whole blood all the time. I lost track of how many gallons I have given. I'm no longer allowed to donate as I have sex with men . I would still donate if I were allowed to do so. I look at it like this. They are constantly begging for donors yet they turn down thousands of people a day across the country for some pretty stupid reasons. If the shortage was as bad as they make it out to be. They would change the rules and allow more people to donate. I understand the "safety" issue however times have changed, technology has improved and they need to change too. I shouldn't have to lie or hide who I am so I can try and help save a life.