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

Poll: Should gay men be permitted to donate blood?
Yes - If they test negative for AIDS (58)
84.06%
No - Under no circumstances should this be permitted (11)
15.94%
Viceroy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Since the early 1980s, any man who tells a blood bank he's had sex with another man at some point since 1977 has been banned from donating blood. The policy was created in the early days of the AIDS epidemic, before scientists had discovered the human immunodeficiency virus, or developed good tests to screen blood for HIV. The ban was considered important to protect people from getting infected with the virus through transfusions.

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.

Another federal advisory committee, which advises the Health and Human Services Department, voted overwhelmingly a few weeks ago to change the policy. Under that committee's recommendation, men who have had sex with men would be allowed to donate if they have been celibate for at least a year. Several other countries, including Australia, Japan and Britain, have adopted similar policies.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014...m-some-gay-men

What do you think?
0
reply
Artimus
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Yes, obviously gay men should be able to donate blood, however I've noticed you've included in your poll this is if they test negative for HIV. I'm confident all blood is tested for HIV, again for obvious reasons.
2
reply
Viceroy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by Artimus)
Yes, obviously gay men should be able to donate blood, however I've noticed you've included in your poll this is if they test negative for HIV. I'm confident all blood is tested for HIV, again for obvious reasons.
Quite true, perhaps I should remove that stipulation.
0
reply
Drunk Punx
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Take their blood and test it. If they have a blood disease, then tell them and put them on a blacklist. Otherwise, just carry on with business as usual. What's so difficult about that?
1
reply
Jemner01
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
If anyone tests + for HIV or similar blood diseases then you'd think their blood shouldn't be used in donation...
0
reply
Schrödingers Cat
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
This is stupid, if the blood doesn't test positive for HIV/Aids why wouldn't they be allowed? Straight people have anal sex too!!
0
reply
AdamskiUK
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
What a waste of time.

Of course healthy gay men should be able to donate.

I literally hate religion.
4
reply
username197472
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
They should be allowed to especially considering the low levels of blood. I think it's the same situation where I live.
0
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by AdamskiUK)
What a waste of time.

Of course healthy gay men should be able to donate.

I literally hate religion.
I respect the sentiment, but I don't think this has much to do with religion.
1
reply
Another
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Viceroy)
Another federal advisory committee, which advises the Health and Human Services Department, voted overwhelmingly a few weeks ago to change the policy. Under that committee's recommendation, men who have had sex with men would be allowed to donate if they have been celibate for at least a year. Several other countries, including Australia, Japan and Britain, have adopted similar policies.
So, how does this work? After not having sex for a year your HIV expires or what?

Genuinely speechless, never thought a law like this could ever exist :lolwut:
3
reply
AdamskiUK
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
I respect the sentiment, but I don't think this has much to do with religion.
Really? Homosexuality is practised, without prejudice, in over 1500 species. There is only discrimination in ONE species.

Higher order thought processes don't create prejudice, religion (and therefore culture, because they are essentially intertwined at the moment, especially in Abrahamic religions) does.

(Original post by Another)
So, how does this work? After not having sex for a year your HIV expires or what?

Genuinely speechless, never thought a law like this could ever exist :lolwut:
Words right outta my mouth - why does a 1-year celibacy limit make ANY sense?
1
reply
Everglow
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
This law isn't specific to the US, sadly. We had the same one up until 2011.

I don't understand why gay men should be banned from giving blood if they've had sex within the last 12 months. It is true that they are more at risk of HIV and AIDS than heterosexuals are, but the truth remains that there are more cases of heterosexuals with AIDS and HIV in the UK than homosexuals. Yes there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, but the statistic remains important.The viruses can be contracted from both types of sex, so why they ban donation from one group but not the other is beyond me. The idea that heterosexual blood is by and large safer than homosexual blood is ludicrous.

Surely the solution is just to test the blood before it's used. If this is already being done, as has been said, then I literally have no clue why they reject active homosexuals' blood.
0
reply
Viceroy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Reluire)
Surely the solution is just to test the blood before it's used. If this is already being done, as has been said, then I literally have no clue why they reject active homosexuals' blood.
As I understand it, this law has been in place since the 80s when there wasn't a reliable way of testing blood for HIV. It really should be changed now that tests are available, but unfortunately hasn't been. It really is discriminatory and only furthers our society's stigmatization of homosexuals.
0
reply
Everglow
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Viceroy)
As I understand it, this law has been in place since the 80s when there wasn't a reliable way of testing blood for HIV. It really should be changed now that tests are available, but unfortunately hasn't been. It really is discriminatory and only furthers our society's stigmatization of homosexuals.
I agree. What's more concerning to me is that they could have changed this law in 2011 when they made their amendments, but they didn't. I have to wonder why.

Moved this thread to Society by the way.
0
reply
Viceroy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by Reluire)
I agree. What's more concerning to me is that they could have changed this law in 2011 when they made their amendments, but they didn't. I have to wonder why.
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.
0
reply
Everglow
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Viceroy)
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 was talking about the UK. Homophobia is certainly easier to express in the US, but blood donation is still an issue for the UK too, for seemingly similar reasons.

But yes, blood stocks are in such low supply. It amazes me they can have such unnecessary and discriminatory filters on who can donate.
0
reply
Viceroy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Reluire)
I was talking about the UK. Homophobia is certainly easier to express in the US, but blood donation is still an issue for the UK too, for seemingly similar reasons.

But yes, blood stocks are in such low supply. It amazes me they can have such unnecessary and discriminatory filters on who can donate.
Ah yes. It's unfortunate that similar policies are in place in so many countries...
0
reply
newusername96
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
militant homosexuals should be banned
0
reply
james22
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by Drunk Punx)
Take their blood and test it. If they have a blood disease, then tell them and put them on a blacklist. Otherwise, just carry on with business as usual. What's so difficult about that?
It is possible to fail to detect HIV in blood.
0
reply
james22
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Another)
So, how does this work? After not having sex for a year your HIV expires or what?

Genuinely speechless, never thought a law like this could ever exist :lolwut:
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.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (438)
67.49%
No (211)
32.51%

Watched Threads

View All