Wow--it seems the rules have changed regarding former residence in the UK. I'm looking forward to resuming my donations after a 23-year break.
Thank you to all who donate. I was diagnosed with Leukemia (AML), followed by a bone marrow transplant. Seven months in the hospital, with blood transfusions almost every day. Your blood is literally the gift of life.
My donor was an unrelated match from an overseas registry - no family match, and no match in North America. It’s been 5.5 years, which means I’m over the 5 year higher risk zone. Yes, my iron is still exceptionally high, but during treatment, the focus was solely on my survival, so iron levels are really at the bottom of the list. It’s hard to describe how very much at the precipice you find yourself: at various times, I was receiving 21 prescriptions at the same time.Thanks for joining in order to post your message.
How are you doing now? Was your transplant donor a relative, or someone found in the bone marrow registry? With so many transfusions, how did you avoid iron overload?
US laws governing blood donation insofar as who is allowed to donate blood are archaic and homophobic, specifically in that they refuse donations from sexually active men who are attracted to men (read: practically all gay men).
sorry, gay!
As usual, regrettable that my type O-negative blood is too gay for the FDA's liking.
Link?The FDA changed the U.S. eligibility rules yesterday. Gay donors are no longer automatically deferred. Assessments are based on individual risk levels (such as having multiple partners) rather than on broad classes (such as simply being gay). I hope @bg1419, @itbrennan, @jonblatho, and the many others who have complained about the old rules are pleased that gays are now eligible to donate blood, and I hope we'll see a resulting uptick in blood and platelet donations.
Link?
Still feels pretty surgically targeted to me; this is just a more veiled way to disqualify the vast majority of dudes who are into dudes. **** that.every potential donor will be asked the same questions, starting with whether they’ve had sex with a new partner in the past three months. If the answer is yes, they will be asked if they’ve engaged in anal sex. A yes to both questions would disqualify them from giving blood.
Still feels pretty surgically targeted to me; this is just a more veiled way to disqualify the vast majority of dudes who are into dudes. **** that.
I’m not being cynical, I’m being clear eyed. This is still obviously targeted to prohibit people who engage in lifestyles most commonly held by same sex attracted men, while still seeming palatable and reasonable to heterosexuals. Until they issue a full throated apology and change the rules so that nobody is deferred because of sexual orientation or behaviors, I’m still going to advocate against blood donations. There is no reason they can’t test the blood sufficiently after it’s donated. Arguments like yours perpetuate discrimination against men who have sex with men on the basis that their sexual practices are inherently dirty or risky, and that their blood is therefore dirty and undesirable, before it’s even been tested. I have nothing else to say to you on this topic, and won’t be replying further.It's easy to be cynical, based on the past discrimination, but there was a lot of scientific input into the new policy. The evidence is that there's a higher risk of infection from anal sex and from having multiple partners. Even though every donation undergoes testing, there's still a gap between the time an infection occurs and the ability to detect it with these tests. That's why other countries have similar rules.
What's most important is that a monogamous gay man is not automatically deferred, as before, while a straight man with multiple recent partners will be deferred due to the higher risk.
Just donated my fourth unit of whole blood for 2023, which is the maximum allowed in my region in a 12 month period. I'll be at it again next year.