Poll: Ban in the US on donating blood if you are gay

Scroll to see replies

It's America. There are so many politicians with utterly homophobic platforms to appease their constituencies. It's so backwards and isn't only causing offense, but is limiting the supply of transfusions and potentially putting people's lives in danger. I wouldn't even put it past some of these folks to claim to not want blood from a gay person; less disturbing things have been said by some of these politicians about homosexuality.

I thought most countries prevented gay men from donating blood? Perhaps I am wrong since I haven't checked, but I actually thought the UK was fairly unusual in permitting it.

Reply 21

The Juan

Gay men should not be able to donate blood under any circumstances

Reply 22

Viceroy

Original post by The Juan

Gay men should not be able to donate blood under any circumstances

You wouldn't want a blood transfusion from a gay man, even if it meant you would die if you didn't have it?

Reply 23

The Juan

Original post by Viceroy

You wouldn't want a blood transfusion from a gay man, even if it meant you would die if you didn't have it?

Id rather die yes. And anyways my body would reject it as I don't swing that way.

Reply 24

Viceroy

Original post by The Juan

Id rather die yes. And anyways my body would reject it as I don't swing that way.

Sure it would. On the off chance you're not just taking the piss, your body doesn't discriminate blood based on the sexual orientation of the person it's from.

Reply 25

Balloon Baboon

If the blood is tested and comes back clean for any infections - then why not? If that said blood would save someone's life - why not?

Pretty simple in my opinion.

Reply 26

Mimir

It's not a ban on giving blood if you're homosexual. It's a ban on giving blood if you are a man who has sex with men, or a woman who has sex with men who have had sex with another man (within a certain period of time). The line between the two is of course almost none existent but exists nevertheless.

Reply 27

Viva Emptiness

Original post by The Juan

Gay men should not be able to donate blood under any circumstances

I'm really enjoying the festive avatar/homophobe combination.

Reply 28

yo radical one

Am I the only concerned that this is even being considered a sensible precaution?

If donated blood is going to be put into another person, it should be screened for diseases such as HIV using medical tests rather than, "Oh he's straight, so it's probably Ok"

If I were to receive blood which hadn't been tested, I would be extremely uneasy regardless of the sexuality of the donor.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 29

thomashigginson

I really don't understand the problem with gay men donating blood as long as their blood isn't contaminated or that they don't have HIV. That's the same as making someone not donate blood because they were wearing a blue jumper...

Reply 30

username33685

Original post by Viceroy

But the policy has been the subject of intense debate for years. Gay rights advocates argue that it's discriminatory. They point out that while gay men may be at higher risk than the average blood donor of being infected with HIV, so are many other people — including intravenous drug users, sexually promiscuous heterosexuals, and heterosexual men who have had sex with a prostitute.

What do you think?

If the US rules are like the UK rules, then these groups of "high risk" people can't donate blood either. There are about 50 questions you have to answer in total with roughly 5 concerning your sex life, and if you say yes to any of them then you can't donate. My dad couldn't donate once because he'd been on holiday to Italy and they'd had issues with a river born disease.

The services that collect blood would rather be overly cautious and risk offending a few people than relaxing the rules and increasing the risk of people getting seriously ill from something they caught from someone's blood. This country is lucky to be in a situation where we are not going to run out of blood any time soon, so can afford to take this stance.

Reply 31

Schrödingers Cat

Original post by james22

Someone who has not had sex in a year but has HIV is far more likely to be showing syptoms. Someone who has had sex within a year could have it without knowing far more easily.

That's not entirely true, HIV can remain inactive in the body for 10 years or longer

Reply 32

Катя

Well, according to UK rules, I (a girl) can't give blood until I've not had sex with my boyfriend for over a year, because he had sex with a guy, once, about 6 years ago.

I'm HIV-free, but y'know, them's the rules.

It's annoying as hell, because I really want to give blood.

Reply 33

Катя

Original post by The Juan

Id rather die yes. And anyways my body would reject it as I don't swing that way.

What if it was the blood of a bisexual man?

Would your body just... explode? :rolleyes:

Reply 34

Ndella

The test for HIV should go for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. It's common sense.

Reply 35

james22

Original post by Schrödingers Cat

That's not entirely true, HIV can remain inactive in the body for 10 years or longer

What I said was entirely true. It is possible for it to remain inactive for 10 years but this does not contradict anything I said.

Reply 36

Schrödingers Cat

Original post by james22

What I said was entirely true. It is possible for it to remain inactive for 10 years but this does not contradict anything I said.

Actually 70%-90% of people who are infected with HIV experience symptoms within 10 days and then symptoms disappear after two to three weeks this is the first stage. The the second stage of HIV has no symptoms and can last up to ten years meaning a person who has waited a year without sex is no more likely to show symptoms than someone who has waited 10. So you are wrong (again).

You may be good at Maths but you're no Biologist.

http://www.hivaware.org.uk/do-i-have-hiv/signs-and-symptoms.php

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 37

kingdoo

I don't understand anyone's logic (unless they are homophobic) as to why gay men should not be able to donate blood.

If the blood has been screened and comeback as clean for any disease then what is the problem. I don't understand what makes it so terrible that they may transmit HIV when there are so many other more common diseases that could be transmitted.

Any disease which could potentially harm should be considered not just HIV/AIDS and all should be considered equally in terms of being potentially dangerous diseases.