kiore wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

kiore wrote:Asking questions before donation is somewhat useful, however just asking about a change of partner or gender of partner not very useful as it does not really take into account any risks partners might have that you may be unaware of, regular or not. A more effective strategy is a risk discussion with the potential donor rather than just a screening checklist, I do understand that checklists are easier to apply but are rather blunt instruments. For example the American Red Cross eliminate you if you lived in the UK in the 1980's, even if you were a vegetarian or never ate beef, also they insist on a 2 year waiting period following travel to a country where malaria present, whether you actually traveled to a risk area or not. This kind of generalized risk assessment encourages negative answers as a default. I experienced this in Australia where they asked me if any of my partners had ever injected illegal drugs (despite this not being a high risk in Australia due to safe injecting policies) or had sex with a man who had sex with men.. When I declined to declare this on behalf of another person, I was encouraged to just declare the negative, even though I stated I could not be certain of other peoples status in this regard, and anyway they may not be certain themselves about others they may have had sex with.
The recent scandal in India where large numbers of people have been and continue to be infected with HIV from blood transfusions is about their screening systems or the lack of them, in countries that screen transfusions this has functionally ceased to be an issue.

Could you elaborate on this risk discussion?

OK well it is like a medical consultation using the identified risk groups used for the location with added information from the individual. For example, using the 'resided in the UK in the 1980's' question, the 'real' question is did you eat beef in the UK in the 1980's, a responder that did not is not is the specific risk group despite being in the general risk group. It may even be decided that being in general risk group in multiple categories puts you on a wait and see status, or an extra testing required category. The extra information might change the status of the would be donor either way and should include an explanation of why this is necessary and even a referral for further investigation if an actual risk identified. Well informed people make better decisions and give better histories. Would be donors should be made aware that the screening of donated products not 100% effective and be assured the reasons for the questions and discussion, of what at some point could be illegal activities, are being done for benefit rather than generated by prejudice or simply pointless bureaucracy.
This of course takes longer than a simple questionnaire, but is all about safety.

kiore wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I see. Sounds reasonable.
I mean at current they're not even distinguishing between forms of sex or number of partners. Just blanket MSM.

It is not only reasonable but far more accurate,

kiore wrote: I work in Public Health and use questionnaires all the time, it is clear that although an effective tool, they are more effective when the subject understands why and what the implications are, and when they generate further discussion. My personal opinion is that it is also unethical to screen without treatment, the treatment could be simply a referral to appropriate followup. To give another example of this if you 'fail' the question on intravenous drug use but further information shows you are a health professional using clean equipment, pharmaceutical drugs and not sharing, this might remove you from the risk group effectively, but it would be wrong not to then offer counselling and referral. Similarly for potential HIV+ status, if the decision is that the would be donor is actually in a high risk group, the care should not cease with declining to accept the donation but referral for sexual health counselling and testing is required.
Just using a marker of MSM with no further information is not very helpful, I worked for many years in sexual health and know that people define sex very differently and not always in the way the question seeks to establish; it was not sex as I didn't cum.... or conversely; we had sex but didn't touch each other.. A simple yes/no questionnaire cannot discover important information and may even be misleading.

scott1328 wrote:And every time one of those blood drives come up at my company, I face questions of "why don't you donate? Are you afraid?" Or worse: "why don't yo.... Oh yeah..." Yeah your blood is exactly as risky as a crack whore, thanks for not donating.

The lifetime ban on gay men from giving blood looks set to be lifted by the end of the year.

The board the the Irish Blood Transfusion Service (IBTS), which met yesterday to discuss the issue, recommended the ban should end.

Animavore wrote:http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/ban-on-blood-donations-by-gay-men-to-end-34829163.html

The lifetime ban on gay men from giving blood looks set to be lifted by the end of the year.

The board the the Irish Blood Transfusion Service (IBTS), which met yesterday to discuss the issue, recommended the ban should end.

Getting there, I suppose.

Acetone wrote:

Animavore wrote:http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/ban-on-blood-donations-by-gay-men-to-end-34829163.html

The lifetime ban on gay men from giving blood looks set to be lifted by the end of the year.

The board the the Irish Blood Transfusion Service (IBTS), which met yesterday to discuss the issue, recommended the ban should end.

Getting there, I suppose.

Canada is looking to remove the abstinence period as well. It's difficult goings though because Health Canada (our public Health agency) is pretty conservative and slow moving (IMO at least).

In the notice, the agency acknowledges suggestions that it should move from a time-based ban to rules that take into account an individual’s risk of HIV. “An individual risk assessment would involve asking potential donors a series of questions designed to defer donors with high risk behaviors,” the FDA wrote.

scott1328 wrote:It's about fucking time:

The FDA signals it may lift a long-standing and controversial restriction

In the notice, the agency acknowledges suggestions that it should move from a time-based ban to rules that take into account an individual’s risk of HIV. “An individual risk assessment would involve asking potential donors a series of questions designed to defer donors with high risk behaviors,” the FDA wrote.