Ban on gay men donating blood to be lifted

I've never really understood why gay men were unable to donate in the first place. Heterosexuals can catch HIV too, and the blood from all donors is tested for HIV and other diseases every time.

I'm all for the blanket ban for being lifted. There isn't enough blood to go around.

Because I believe in minimising the risk whereever possible, and whilst determining high risk groups is difficult, it's clear that homosexual or bisexual men have a higher risk.

But then again, I'm very paranoid about hospital risks due to a hospital cock-up when I was little, so I'm possibly oversensitive to the issue.

The blood is tested every time for many different diseases like HIV before it is transfused to a patient, so you really shouldn't need to worry.

Who can donate blood should be in the best interests of potential recipients, not the donors, but since people can lie about medical histories, where they have been, their sexual activities etc. I do not see why there should be a ban on all homosexuals for donating blood just because there is a slightly higher risk of contracting HIV.

if you are still regularly doing something that puts you at risk you could have HIV and it not show up. you will be infected.. and infectious for a few months before anything will show up on blood tests. which is why a wait is required after getting tattoos and piercings and should be after ALL unprotected sex not just gay sex

How soon can HIV be detected after being caught?

I personally think it would be better if it was something like "If you hadn't had gay sex for the the amount of time above and have a negative HIV you should be allowed to give blood"

Although I've got plenty of gay friends who donate blood anyway and just lie.

Plus I think it's unfair because plenty of girls who have sex with guys and they may not know if the guys have a previous sexual history with other guys etc. yet they can still donate blood.

You can't, there's a section on the form where it asks whether you have had sex with a man who has had sexual intercourse with another man within the last 6 months or something of the like if I remember rightly.

Wait, I don't get this:

"Sexually active" homosexuals are at risk of contracting HIV, so they are not allowed to donate blood. On the contrary, "sexually active" heterosexuals are at risk of contracting HIV as well, but they are allowed to donate blood.

Yep, but with the amount of one night stands that happen, I doubt every girl asks every guy "Have you ever had sex with a guy before?"

Yeah this is true, when I went to give blood I found I couldn't after I had had a piercing within 12 weeks or something I can't quite remember how long the wait was.

There's just the issue of people lying on their forms about having unprotected sex and everything else.

Exactly, that's the problem with these forms.

Because gay men are at a disproportionately high risk of having HIV - it's at a higher prevalence in the gay community than the general population, there is a culture of promiscuity in some parts of the gay community and anal sex is a higher risk route of transmission than vaginal.

Of course, there are plenty of promiscuous straight people and you don't have to be gay to have anal sex etc, but the stats are very clear that gay men as a group are at higher risk.

I have thought that the blanket ban was unfair for a long time, but I think that to deny the risks is stupid.