ECJ says ban on blood donations from gay men 'may be justified'

[ItachiZaku]

Straight blood for straight people, gay blood for gay. Simple.

[ellieg]

This focus that gay men would be the only source of HIV is disturbing.

I get that it's a higher risk group based on statistics as a percentage of population, but in terms of numbers there are more straight people with HIV than gay ones. If you really wanted to avoid wasting resources you just ask about behavior and not categorization of people. Yes? No?

Plus, with PreP becoming a thing you are going to see HIV rates in the gay population drop drastically -- and thus the straight population is going to become more high risk. What then?

" more straight people with HIV than gay ones" I don't think this is true.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

"Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available."

[mauserr]

Pop quiz -- when was the ban put into place?

Are we talkin USA here? Fucked if I know, but there are countries with bans like that and the people behind those bans disagreed with you.

[Lenonis]

" more straight people with HIV than gay ones" I don't think this is true.

In absolute numbers, not percentages. This is absolutely true globally (helllllllllo africa) but still true in the states.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps I should've worded it differently, but I actually meant that they did disagree and deemed such a ban justified, should a ban like that happen.

The ban was a very understandable reaction to the AIDS crisis. However things are quite a bit different now, especially given the spread of HIV into minority populations and straight populations. That's why I feel it's an outdated policy that is basically only catching some of the problems while letting others slip right by -- and in the process eliminating perfectly safe donors.

It's just kind of a fundamental stance -- behaviors are risky, people aren't. If that makes any sense?

[ellieg]

In absolute numbers, not percentages. This is absolutely true globally (helllllllllo africa) but still true in the states.

from my last post.

"MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available." from cdc. so its for the US

[nextormento]

Pop quiz -- when was the ban put into place?

In France?
1983

[Lenonis]

from my last post.

"MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available." from cdc. so its for the US

Gotcha -- however that's 4 year old data. I'm pretty sure the scales have tipped, especially with the spread of it in minority populations.

If I have time later I'll poke around to see where I saw the numbers for this before. Either way even if it's 50-50, it's still not a "gay" disease at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

In France?
1983

Right -- which confirms my previous comments about it being a reaction to the AIDS crisis of the 80s.

[pateuvasiliu]

Statistically black people are more likely to cause crimes but if a white man accuses a white you shouldn't just assume the black one's guilty, you should check.

This is ridiculous, they should check the blood anyway.

[Hyve]

This is ridiculous, they should check the blood anyway.

They do, but being able to reduce the amount of work and resources put into Blood Screening is a good idea. False Positives, or False Negatives are going to be problematic, and only make the problem worse on Blood Donation.

Blood is in very short supply, but I don't think opening up to a higher risk group is going to help that, quite the opposite. I think a lifetime ban is of course overkill, but finding the safety point and working around that might be just as dangerous.

[ellieg]

Gotcha -- however that's 4 year old data. I'm pretty sure the scales have tipped, especially with the spread of it in minority populations.

If I have time later I'll poke around to see where I saw the numbers for this before. Either way even if it's 50-50, it's still not a "gay" disease at this point.

- - - Updated - - -


Right -- which confirms my previous comments about it being a reaction to the AIDS crisis of the 80s.

Well even if its 50/50, 2% of the population contains 50% of the cases. They can safely ignore 2% of the population having the option to donate, if it means 50% of all HIV cases will be discouraged from donating. Math doesn't care about feelings.

[nextormento]

Right -- which confirms my previous comments about it being a reaction to the AIDS crisis of the 80s.

Well, yeah, I would expect people to know why these bans ware put in place. And I suspect people are ok with those policies being overzealous when it comes to public safety.

I don't think anyone is ok with blanket bans just because. Merely that they need to be sufficiently justified. In the case of France, it appears they have a higher incidence of HIV among gay males. The ECJ ruling is simply being pragmatic about it.

It's important to note that Hollande came with the promise to ease on that ban, revisit the policy and the questionnaire.

[Lenonis]

Well even if its 50/50, 2% of the population contains 50% of the cases. They can safely ignore 2% of the population having the option to donate, if it means 50% of all HIV cases will be discouraged from donating. Math doesn't care about feelings.

Yes yes yes. I'm not arguing the risk factors. I'm just saying it makes sense to have questions be about behavior and not categorically deny people. In case I haven't been clear about it -- it's a bit of a grey area, but it is silly to have this rather archaic view that all gay men are disease ridden and all straight people are clean as a whistle. Since the screening process relies of self identification anyway, it would make more sense to focus on risky behavior rather than just "hey, do you like dudes?"

Plus, lifetime bans are not really justified either. A period of time, yes. But lifetime?

- - - Updated - - -

It's important to note that Hollande came with the promise to ease on that ban, revisit the policy and the questionnaire.

Which is basically all I'm asking. Take a pragmatic approach to it, look at the questions and the criteria and see if it makes sense, or if it should be revised.

I'm honestly baffled that people are arguing with me that asking about behavior is a worse approach that blanket bans on demographics. Does not compute.

[Themius]

Well even if its 50/50, 2% of the population contains 50% of the cases. They can safely ignore 2% of the population having the option to donate, if it means 50% of all HIV cases will be discouraged from donating. Math doesn't care about feelings.

I'm trying to fingure out what makes you think only 2% of people are msm lmao. Something like almost a quarter of men have had sex with other men at some point in their lives. Hell even 10% of self proclaimed straight men have had sex with men at some point.

[Lenonis]

I'm trying to fingure out what makes you think only 2% of people are msm lmao. Something like almost a quarter of men have had sex with other men at some point in their lives. Hell even 10% of self proclaimed straight men have had sex with men at some point.

People always forget that this is self identification. A lot of people are closeted or don't consider themselves gay even though they sleep with men. It's a terrible statistic and it's pretty obvious after a bit of thought that the amount of "not straight" people is considerably higher.

[ellieg]

Yes yes yes. I'm not arguing the risk factors. I'm just saying it makes sense to have questions be about behavior and not categorically deny people. In case I haven't been clear about it -- it's a bit of a grey area, but it is silly to have this rather archaic view that all gay men are disease ridden and all straight people are clean as a whistle. Since the screening process relies of self identification anyway, it would make more sense to focus on risky behavior rather than just "hey, do you like dudes?"

Plus, lifetime bans are not really justified either. A period of time, yes. But lifetime?

- - - Updated - - -


Which is basically all I'm asking. Take a pragmatic approach to it, look at the questions and the criteria and see if it makes sense, or if it should be revised.

I'm honestly baffled that people are arguing with me that asking about behavior is a worse approach that blanket bans on demographics. Does not compute.

I agree, I don't think lifetime bans are needed. However, they picked a simple solution that should eliminate 50% of all HIV in blood samples. Yes people can lie. straights lie too. This is why testing is still done. They didn't care to navigate around the feelings of everyone. Other questions are asked as well to eliminate the chance of HIV. All im trying to say is that yes, you are correct, they could ask even more questions and drop the whole gay thing all together. But, they are not concerned with that and already have a system in place that works. It is is not discrimination like some people are arguing, they simply don't want to spend resources on changing the whole design.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm trying to fingure out what makes you think only 2% of people are msm lmao. Something like almost a quarter of men have had sex with other men at some point in their lives. Hell even 10% of self proclaimed straight men have had sex with men at some point.

Im using stats from the CDC. Take up your issues with them.

[Lenonis]

They didn't care to navigate around the feelings of everyone.

I hope you realize I'm not arguing about feelings. I mean let's face it "have you had butt sex with another dude? Oh? Yes? Get out." isn't exactly pro-feelings...but I support it.

It is is not discrimination like some people are arguing, they simply don't want to spend resources on changing the whole design.

It is discrimination -- but discrimination with a purpose other than "I don't like your kind." It was a simple, quick fix at a time of scary panic before testing got as good as it is today. It made sense back then...not so much today.

[pateuvasiliu]

They do, but being able to reduce the amount of work and resources put into Blood Screening is a good idea. False Positives, or False Negatives are going to be problematic, and only make the problem worse on Blood Donation.

Blood is in very short supply, but I don't think opening up to a higher risk group is going to help that, quite the opposite. I think a lifetime ban is of course overkill, but finding the safety point and working around that might be just as dangerous.

But how would you do that? YOu have to check every blood sample you get.

What, you'll just SKIP checking it because it comes from a straight guy? Obviously not.

So since you check every sample it doesn't matter if it's from a gay guy or a straight guy.

If gays had some disease only they can get I'd understand but HIV doesn't care about sexuality and since everyone can get it it's redundant to treat people differently.

[ellieg]

But how would you do that? YOu have to check every blood sample you get.

What, you'll just SKIP checking it because it comes from a straight guy? Obviously not.

So since you check every sample it doesn't matter if it's from a gay guy or a straight guy.

If gays had some disease only they can get I'd understand but HIV doesn't care about sexuality and since everyone can get it it's redundant to treat people differently.

Read the thread. They are tested in batches. If one of them comes up positive, they either throw out the batch, or test each one individually which costs money and time. If they can prevent samples being collected from people who STATISTICALLY are 44 times more likely as a group to have HIV, it is a good decision. Especially if it only reduces potential blood samples by 2%