Live Q&As

Thanks for your question. Other gay men I spoke with expressed the same sentiment. Two of them said they've been in monogamous relationships for years, get tested for HIV regularly, etc. They said they are not a threat to the blood supply. They also said they had heterosexual friends who had multiple partners, and they didn't think it was fair that they were not considered a threat.

This is another point that one of my sources made. He said black women are at growing risk for HIV and are not banned from blood donation and he believed gay men should also not be banned.

I've heard the same thing from people who travel abroad widely. Personally, I travel to India every year. But the FDA argues that they do use good screening methods now, and that they are trying to be extra-safe and protect the U.S. blood supply. Officials also say the current situation is not ideal and they are researching the situation now.

The issue of honesty during the questioning was brought up by a doctor I spoke with for the story. That can be an issue, for anyone, not just for gay men. However, if they actually had the virus and knew it, it would be picked up by the blood testing. In fact, if someone had the virus and didn't know it -- and had contracted it more than about 11 days ago -- the testing would tell them that they had the virus. And the blood would not be used.

Several people I have spoken with share this view, although others say it's better to be safe when it comes to any group at higher-than-average risk of HIV. Your point about heterosexuals also contracting HIV was made to me any times, particularly by gay men in long-term, monogomous relationships who said they have heterosexual friends with multiple partners who are allowed to give blood.

Certainly several advocates I've talked to on the subject agree, pointing to the same issues you do about sexual practices versus populations. The FDA and its supporters argue that they are not discriminating against a particularly group, however, just trying to keep the blood supply safe.

My understanding is that if someone contracts the virus, there's a window of about 9-11 days when the most sensitive test (which is used in blood donation) cannot detect the virus in the person's blood. But if it was contracted before that, it will show up, even if the person does not know he or she is infected.

Other people I talked to asked the same question about why there is a lifetime ban when the window between contracting the virus and detecting it is less than two weeks. Some scientists who want to err on the safe side say it should be shortened to a matter of months since the last sexual encounter. England's rule on blood donation says a year. On the issue of payment for sex, that is to find out if someone may be a prostitute and therefore more likely to have sex with multiple partners and be more susceptible to HIV.

I can't really give an opinion. But a doctor I spoke with did bring up the issue of lying when asked the blood donation questions. Some people do it, but doctors view this as very dangerous. There are some states with laws against lying in such cases, in fact.

The FDA and its supporters point to the same issue, about safety being paramount. But critics of this blood policy say there's many instances of risk. For example, a heterosexual person who has multiple partners may be at risk for HIV, but that would most likely not come up in the questioning.

Certainly some of the people I spoke with would agree with you. But several people pointed out that things were much different in the 1990s. Screening and testing for HIV was not as good, and HIV represented a much greater threat to the blood supply then. You may recall the case of Ryan White, the Indiana teen who developed AIDS from a blood transfusion. But such cases are extremely rare these days.

Several people I spoke with expressed this same view. There is a small window in which someone can have the virus, but the test will not pick it up. But in the vast majority of cases, testing would pick it up.

I can't really suggest a change in policy, given that I'm a nuetral journalist. But many in the public health community -- and some doctors I spoke with -- said the most important thing is to keep the U.S. blood supply safe and err on the side of safety. And the FDA argues it is not being discriminatory, just trying to keep the blood supply safe.

Yes, that is what I mean -- higher-than-average risk. Having a high number of multiple partners puts someone at high risk. And you're right; anyone having sex would be at risk for HIV.

I have not seen the "200 times" figure, but the federal government does say the prevalance is much higher among men who have sex with men than among the general population. However, several gay men, and some medical professionals I spoke with, said they consider gay men in long-term, monogomous relationships who are tested regularly for HIV to be at lower risk than, for example, heterosexuals with many multiple partners.

Several people brought up the issue of heterosexuals engaging in high-risk activities -- particularly promiscuity -- and said they don't think it's fair that they are allowed to donate blood when men who have sex with men are not, even if they have one long-term partner.