Talk:MSM blood donor controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.

[edit] Requested move

I think the name MSM blood donor controversy should be switched to MSM tissue donors. First of all, the article deals more with describing the issue of blood/organ donation then it does any actual controversy over the practice. Secondly, the issue not restricted to blood... it's many different tissues that are restricted. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe MSM donor controversy? "Tissue" includes blood only in the most technical sense, and blood donation is where most of the protests, lawsuits, etc... have taken place.Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually going to suggest renaming it to "Gay blood ban". This is the terminology I have heard most often, and it returns many more hits on Google: 8,000+ vs. 16. J. Smith, you bring up a good point and "MSM tissue ban" may be more technically precise, but I think we should defer to common usage. Queerudite (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say leave the title as is and create a redirect page for the Gay blood ban. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gay refers to sexual preference/orientation, MSM refers to sexual activity. The American CDC classifies MSM's as MSM's to include people regardless of self-identification (including MSM's do not self-identify as gay). MSM is a legitimate government term with specific meaning, as long as the article itself explains to the casual reader what MSM means. IMHO. -- caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 06:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The title I tossed at it was simply a four word description, not an actual common use name. The policy says "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." None of the sources I've used really give it a name, they just report what is happening, so I don't know that there is a common use name out there. I agree with cm80 that replacing MSM with gay is not accurate, but as J.S pointed out, "blood" isn't that accurate either. "MSM" is an acronym with multiple meanings, so avoiding it would be great, though it is the most accurate description. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm alone here, but I never heard of "gay blood ban" before this page. I was familiar with the CDC (I'm not sure how other countries refer to MSM) calling it MSM though. Blood donation guidelines in the US block you from donating if you have had male-male sex even once at any time since 1970something. Whether you identify as heterosexual,homosexual,bisexual,queer,gay,bi,whatever. If you can find a better name that applies to sexual history and not sexual identity or preference that could work. As to the other part of the problem (blood vs tissue) maybe something like MSM Blood and tissue donor ban would work ?? i dunno. (my 2 cents)-- caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

btw, as Bookeeper pointed out, whatver the consensus ends up being for the article name, a redirect could be set up from gay. --caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 04:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that MSM is more accurate, but I have never heard anyone refer to it as the "MSM blood ban". I have heard it frequently referred to as the "gay blood ban" or even simply the "blood ban". Google those phrases and you will see what I mean. Even just googling "blood ban" brings up mostly references to "gay blood ban". My understanding of WP:NAME is we should defer to common usage. At the very least, I think the name should include the phrase "blood ban" (again, even though tissue is more accurate).

If you look at similar controversies (e.g. MMR vaccine controversy) on wikipedia, a "short description" name rather than a common name is sometimes retained. WP:NPOV trumps WP:NC, and giving the article a "popular name" may be a concern when googling the exact expression "Gay blood ban" shows almost entirely sites that are against it. Some google searches:

• Gay blood AIDS (350k results) shows only 2 of the top 10 results using the exact phrase "gay blood ban" (Using a third relevant keyword because looking for MSM blood without a third word will bring up a lot of garbage)
• Gay blood AIDS -"gay blood ban" has 336k results, only 14k less than the keywords without the expression.
• MSM blood AIDS shows 200k results (this page is #6, which is highly disturbing).

Just some food for thought. Somedumbyankee (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's really my main prob with the phrase. Gay blood ban is POV-esque since it implies gays are banned because they are gay. Gays are not banned because they are gay, but because they have engaged in MSM activity. (of course if they weren't gay/bi, would they have engaged in MSM activity is a question but is beside the point lol). If a teenager is gay but hasn't had MSM sex yet, they are fully eligible to donate blood as they are not an "MSM". For those reasons I think the main article would be best NPOV placed at an "MSM" title, but with a "Gay" name redirecting to it. just my 2 cents.. i'm not gonna fight it to the death. :) -- caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 14:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

PS- The above being said, gay blood ban would be perfect for a page advocating its lifting, or a gay news article protesting its existence. (however wikipedia is neither of those...) -- caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 14:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What if we completely removed the gay/MSM aspect from the title? What about tissue donation restrictions, or something similar? It would also permit for a wider scope to explore the issue further... including intravenous drug users, the tattooed, etc. It would also make the name much easier to find on a search-engine. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Transfusion transmitted infection is my plan for the general laundry list of "what the problems are, and how people deal with them." This specific controversy is notable in its own right since it's a conflict between avoiding discrimination and avoiding medical risk. The other restrictions are challenged solely on medical risk (enough donors vs. safe donors) and not on ethical grounds. Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sections to add

• Countries that have reduced or removed restrictions (I saw something about Russia, don't have a reliable source).
• History of non-US proposals to drop requirements.
• I believe I saw an EU decision that the ban was "justified discrimination" but I'm not putting that in without a clear cite.
• Other high-risk groups that are not restricted (African-American women?), need CDC or other authoritative cites.
• Other examples of protests, lawsuits, boycotts, letter writing campaigns, et cetera.

I'll get around to these eventually, but if anyone else wants to pitch in, go for it.Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What about "Other high-risk activities with similar bans"? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting it in context of other restrictions on blood donors may also be a worthwhile addition. The obvious example is the vCJD restrictions in the US, which exclude a substantial group of donors over a much smaller risk (I wouldn't be surprised if more people die each day from HIV than have ever died from a TSE). The most similar exclusions (injection drug users and prostitutes, #2 and #3 on the CDC list of high risk groups) are somewhat incendiary as comparisons and they would have to be added carefully (that cocaine users aren't restricted from donating and heroin users are is probably an important point). Appeals to ethical principles are great, and I'd love to see some opinions from noted bioethicists, but appeals to emotion are something I'd like to beat away with a very large stick. Once I get blood donation GA'ed (it's very close, or so I think), Transfusion transmitted infection is my next project, so I may not get to this for a bit.Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)