The American Red Cross is now allowing gay and bisexual men to donate blood without restrictions that specifically single out a person’s sexual orientation or gender, the nonprofit group said Monday.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 years ago

            Again, it has been screenable for decades. Just like many other blood-borne diseases. Why single out HIV as if it is impossible to filter out of the supply?

            • krayj@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Why single out HIV as if it is impossible to filter out of the supply?

              Screening accuracy is lightyears better today than it was decades ago.

              Also, many things on the screening test won’t kill you in the event of a false negative on screening. A false negative for HIV screening meant a certain death sentence for the recipient, and that was true until just a few years ago.

              Why single out HIV

              HIV never was ‘singled out’. There are numerous other behaviors and activities that disqualify a potential donor that have nothing to do with HIV.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 years ago

                It absolutely was singled out. You have to specifically say you haven’t had gay sex when you donate blood. I’ve done it plenty of times.

                • krayj@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  “Singled out” implies that that it stood alone as the only behavior that was screened for. But that’s not the case. There always have been and still are numerous other behaviors and activities screened for and denied.

            • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              They phrased it “men who have sex with men” because that was - and is - undeniably a huge risk factor in the transmission of HIV. It was an unprecedented public health emergency and I don’t think people nowadays quite understand how severe it was. Which is great, really, we’ve come such a long way.

              Communication infrastructure was nothing like it is today either, there was a real absence of information and people were extremely scared, especially gay men watching their friends die. A blanket ban was the only sane thing to do in the circumstances.

              Did it need to persist so long, perhaps not, but even 20 years ago AIDS was much less preventable and treatable than it is today. And the gears of bureaucracy turn extremely slowly at the best of times.

              As someone else has pointed out, this is far from the only group excluded from the donor pool. It’s not a moral judgment, just a screening heuristic at the demographic level. That’s how things have to operate at the level of public services; i.e. population-level policy.

              • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 years ago

                I agree. As I said in another comment, the book And The Band Played On is a great history of the AIDS epidemic in the USA and really hammers home just how devestating it was to gay men. It’s a fact that gay men are the major risk group in the West for HIV transmission. Heterosexual sex is much less likely to spread it compared to anal sex. There was a lot of mismanagement of it, but screening was a good idea, when it was finally introduced.

  • DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 years ago

    Maybe this is a cynical take, but will conservatives refuse a life saving blood transfusion because it may have come from a gasp gay man? I mean a bunch were refusing transfusions because the blood could have come from someone that had a gasp covid vaccine.

    • zaph@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 years ago

      There are people who refuse blood transfusions because of relious beliefs and will let their children die. Of course there are some that would refuse “gay blood.”

    • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Frankly dude, the amount of people, even fairly right-wing people who will be preoccupied with this is teeny tiny. I’m sure they exist but it’s a negligible amount of people. The person obsessed with stereotyping these people is you.

  • Tenthrow@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 years ago

    Conservatives might be getting some of that gay blood. Does that work the same as eating the heart of a warrior to gain their power?

  • brlemworld@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Under the new guidelines, anyone who has recently had sex with a new partner or multiple people and has also had anal sex would have to wait three months to donate

    Those taking oral medication to prevent HIV infection, called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, still have to wait three months from their last dose to donate blood. People taking long-acting PrEP injections have to wait two years before donating.

    • DebraBucket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Darn, so straight people having anal raw dog gang bangs can no longer donate soon after experiencing a DVDA? How is that fair? /s

  • beanz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    how the hell have we reached a point as a society where people would rather literally fucking die than get life saving blood from someone who thinks differently from them?

    • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 years ago

      This started off when HIV was much more prominent in the gay and bisexual male population than anyone else. The Red Cross, among other organizations, decided it was better to just deny blood from gay and bi males than to check all their samples for HIV. Similarly, you can’t give blood if you were in certain locations in the '80s and '90s due to potential exposure to Mad Cow Disease. At this point, while HIV is still somewhat more prevalent in that demographic, rates have gone down significantly and HIV has spread to the other demographics. It’s also easier to test for than it was then. Repealing these restrictions was proposed quite some time ago and didn’t face any real pushback, but bureaucracy is going to bureaucracy, so it’s taken years to get this settled.

    • Jardthebard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Bigots just assume the blood is always gonna be there. They don’t think as deeply as you credit them for