Ban on gay men donating blood to be lifted

Because gay people are more likely to have HIV! How many times does it have to be said?

The other example is an extreme one where the risk is clearly minimal, but asking people specifics about their sexual life is not going to get honest answers and is not worth it

Its highly unlikely that you would become HIV positive from a blood transfusion.The blood donated is tested before its given to the recipient, if something is found in the blood after testing the donor is contacted and the blood is destroyed.I'm a regular blood donor and I know full well that my donation is checked before someone gets it.

Why would your life be "destroyed" if you were unfortunate enough to get HIV. HIV is a condition with excellent treatments and if caught in the early stages people have a virtually normal life expectancy.

Of course, it is has other consequences but none that should "destroy" someones life. HIV is no longer a "death sentence" and such stigma and beliefs are misplaced.

Well, they can't - that's the problem. Just today I heard an advert on the radio saying "blood stocks in your area are low - phone this number to donate now - if you don't you are killing a person blah blah emotional blackmail" so obviously there is a blood shortage. As I say, blanket bans need to be lifted and a good risk/benefit ratio needs to be found.

It seems strange to do the blanket ban asking men if they have had any contact with men, and asking women if they have had contact with men who have had contact with men... but they don't screen out promiscuous people versus those who have sex with few people.

Because HIV would progress to AIDS

Not only would that dramatically lower my life expectancy

I wouldn't be able to have a normal life, would I?

No wife, no kids, no sex, poor immune function etc

Well, they can't - that's the problem. Just today I heard an advert on the radio saying "blood stocks in your area are low - phone this number to donate now - if you don't you are killing a person blah blah emotional blackmail" so obviously there is a blood shortage. As I say, blanket bans need to be lifted and a good risk/benefit ratio needs to be found.

With good compliance with treatment and treated early HIV rarely progresses to AIDS.

Life expectancy in people as described above is only slightly shorter than people without HIV.

Of course there would be some lifestyle changes but none of the things you describe would be impossible.

Sadly this ignorance regarding HIV is widespread.

It can still happen though, surely?

99.9% means that one in every one thousand readings will be incorrect.

I don't like them odds!



Because HIV would progress to AIDS

Not only would that dramatically lower my life expectancy

I wouldn't be able to have a normal life, would I?

No wife, no kids, no sex, poor immune function etc

I don't think many women would be willing to have children to a man with HIV like

There are assisted conception techniques which make it possible.

Aye, but c'mon man, who wants to mess around with that, seriously?

My point is, that contracting HIV would destroy my life.

Therefore, I would rather high-risk groups did not donate blood.

If gay men are a high risk group for passing on HIV, unless they have an extremely rare in demand blood type, it's probably safer if they don't give blood.

i never knew this ban existed :/
Its a bit of a stupid ban aswel, since everyone needs to have their blood checked first before donating anyway so they will always know if someone has hiv or not.

This has been covered multiple times in this thread already.

Meh. I think the ban itself is unfair. There is a small risk of such a disease, but this is far outweighed by the amount of good blood can give.

Perhaps if we had free, and regular HIV screening? I am under the impression it's a relativley cheap process, judging by the frequency with which it's carried out in impoverished Africa.