Donating blood is a great sacrifice.
You're literally giving a bit of yourself to help another.
So why can't some people give blood?
Is this science, or prejudice?
Hello humans, Trace here for DNews.
Blood donation is seen by some, as a civil right.
People making a sacrifice, literally weakening themselves, to help strangers.
But, according to the FDA, men who have sex with men -- known as MSM -- aren't treated
equally when it comes to blood donation, and some have gone as far to imply they're banned
from doing so.
Firstly, that's not true.
Men who have sex with men, (as well as women and transgender persons who have sex with
MSM) are all required to wait 12 months after their most recent risky sexual contact before
they can donate.
But they CAN donate.
But does that even make sense?
MSM populations have blood, we need blood…
why not allow them donation?
It all comes back to HIV.
In 1981, a severe disease of epidemic proportions was spreading through the gay community, killing
hundreds of thousands of men and women.
At first, it was called GRID -- gay-related immunodeficiency disease.
Later, it was renamed the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
AIDS put the public in a frenzy, and rightly so.
229-thousand people died due to AIDS from 1981 to 1992.
And once it was discovered to be bloodborne, people realized some had acquired it through
infected blood transfusion.
So, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration decided to act passing a lifetime ban on blood
donation from any men who had ever had sex with another man (again known as MSM -- men
who have sex with men); this was in 1983...
In 1985, a test called ELISA was invented which could detect antibodies created by the
human immune system in response to infection by the HIV virus which causes AIDS!
So, now that blood could be screened, we didn't need the ban, right?
We just needed to know if someone had HIV, and screen those who weren't sure!
Right?
Nope.
The Ban remained until 2015, when it was revised to the current -- abstain from sex for a year,
bro.
Then come back.
Even though, since 1987, HIV blood screening tests have become nearly 100 percent accurate,
putting it on par with Hepatitis screening; MSM populations are still singled out.
Which is weird, because I'm pretty sure anal sex isn't confined to just gay, and bisexual
men… women can have anal intercourse, and can carry and spread HIV.
So why aren't they subject to the same restrictions?
Well, because 72 percent of new HIV infections occur in gay men, who only make up 2 percent
of the population.
Because of the thin lining of the rectum, unprotected anal intercourse is up to 18 times
more risky than vaginal sex.
Blood and fluids are more easily exchanged, meaning HIV transmission risk increases.
But not everyone in the MSM community has HIV, or has unprotected sex.
I mean, monogamous gay, transgender, and bisexual partners without HIV literally cannot spread
a virus they don't have!
But they're subject to the same 12-month deferment.
So, yes, the original ban came from fear of the unknown; fear of AIDS and HIV drove the
FDA to simply eliminate the risk entirely, but now according to AIDS dot gov, we have
some of the safest blood in the world.
Donated blood goes through more than a dozen screens and tests looking for evidence of
West Nile, Syphilis, Hepatitis, HIV and parasites like Malaria, among other things.
And though it's perceived as unfair, the CDC and FDA believe it's better to ask gay men
to wait a year to ensure the HIV appears in the tests.
That being said, The Columbia Medical Review writes that HIV infection can be tested accurately
within two weeks of exposure, and in light of blood shortages, they recommend a new process:
Simply this: ask everyone about their risky sexual behaviors before they donate blood:
Men, women, transgender, non-binary, asexual, everyone.
Then, those who are unsure of their HIV exposure, can be deferred until they're sure, and everyone
else can donate frickin' blood.
Especially since we're screening everyone anyway.
As they put it, succinctly: a "lifetime ban is medically and scientifically unwarranted."
According to the American Red Cross, someone needs blood every two seconds, and while 38
percent of the U.S. population could donate blood, only 10 percent does.
Changing this deferment would mean more blood for everyone, even if it came from a dude
who boned another dude, blood is blood is blood is blood…
I mean it is, except when it's a different blood type.
Why do we even have different blood types?
And what happens if you put A blood into a B person?
Find out from my blood-buddy Julian, right here.
What do y'all think?
Should we take all the blood donations we can and screen later?
How do you feel about the so-called Blood Ban?