posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
damerell at 08:09pm on 24/11/2006
damerell at 08:09pm on 24/11/2006The latest LJ meme seems to be a petition to repeal the rule prohibiting men who have sex with men from donating blood. I'd like to have a rant about that; normally I just do it in comments, but this idea seems remarkably widespread.
Context: I have sex with men - well, one man. Hell of a way to out yourself, but it seems pertinent.
The incidence of HIV amongst men who have sex with men (which is what is actually banned; people are banned on the basis of activity, not sexual orientation) is twenty times that which is typical of the population at large. It is obviously considerably more so than that amongst the portion of the population who aren't MSMs, don't have sex in West Africa, don't take IV drugs, etc. Half of all new HIV infections detected are amongst MSMs. The idea that the rising infection level amongst heterosexuals renders the risk assessment outdated is just wishful thinking.
The screening technique used for HIV in blood is not 100% reliable; no 100% reliable screening technique exists. Every year, a small number of people are infected by blood transfusions. Therefore, taking blood from high-risk groups will result in HIV infections. Presently blood supplies do not run out [1], so taking this extra blood would not save lives.
It is not practical to quiz people extensively on their sexual histories. Each additional question causes a drop in donations; people find these questions intrusive. A significant drop in donations would cost lives.
Furthermore, because the incidence of HIV amongst MSMs overall is so much higher, extensive questioning would be necessary; only the very least sexually active MSMs represent a lower risk than the population at large. This also implies that the quantity of blood you gain by this extensive questioning is rather small.
What they are proposing to do would, literally, kill people for the sake of an ideological point.
Furthermore, an observation; giving blood is not some kind of privilege. It's tedious except when it's painful, and the purpose of the exercise is not to make the donor feel smug. I can't do something tedious or painful which I would otherwise feel obliged to do? Lucky me. You can't either? Lucky you.
Comments screened if you ask me to or if they reveal someone's sexual history and they don't ask me not to.
[All figures from Department of Health website.]
[1] They might, though, and if you don't donate purely because you think the policy's homophobic you're an idiot. Even if you were right, the people you'd be penalising are not the people who wrote the policy.
Context: I have sex with men - well, one man. Hell of a way to out yourself, but it seems pertinent.
The incidence of HIV amongst men who have sex with men (which is what is actually banned; people are banned on the basis of activity, not sexual orientation) is twenty times that which is typical of the population at large. It is obviously considerably more so than that amongst the portion of the population who aren't MSMs, don't have sex in West Africa, don't take IV drugs, etc. Half of all new HIV infections detected are amongst MSMs. The idea that the rising infection level amongst heterosexuals renders the risk assessment outdated is just wishful thinking.
The screening technique used for HIV in blood is not 100% reliable; no 100% reliable screening technique exists. Every year, a small number of people are infected by blood transfusions. Therefore, taking blood from high-risk groups will result in HIV infections. Presently blood supplies do not run out [1], so taking this extra blood would not save lives.
It is not practical to quiz people extensively on their sexual histories. Each additional question causes a drop in donations; people find these questions intrusive. A significant drop in donations would cost lives.
Furthermore, because the incidence of HIV amongst MSMs overall is so much higher, extensive questioning would be necessary; only the very least sexually active MSMs represent a lower risk than the population at large. This also implies that the quantity of blood you gain by this extensive questioning is rather small.
What they are proposing to do would, literally, kill people for the sake of an ideological point.
Furthermore, an observation; giving blood is not some kind of privilege. It's tedious except when it's painful, and the purpose of the exercise is not to make the donor feel smug. I can't do something tedious or painful which I would otherwise feel obliged to do? Lucky me. You can't either? Lucky you.
Comments screened if you ask me to or if they reveal someone's sexual history and they don't ask me not to.
[All figures from Department of Health website.]
[1] They might, though, and if you don't donate purely because you think the policy's homophobic you're an idiot. Even if you were right, the people you'd be penalising are not the people who wrote the policy.
There are 25 comments on this entry.