Should gay men be allowed to give blood?

I am not usually intolerant to other opinions, but I have to say the people arguing in favour of gay men being allowed to donate are looking increasingly foolish.

Reply 63

rugdollap

Gay/lesbian/bisexual/homosexuals should not be allowed to donate blood. For religious people, being given this blood is corrupting their soul. What happens if a gay donates blood to a child? Does that child become gay?

Gay men donating blood is unethical in my opinion. There are research that claims gay is a result of an illness. Just theories but I believe them.

Reply 64

LH

rugdollap

Gay/lesbian/bisexual/homosexuals should not be allowed to donate blood. For religious people, being given this blood is corrupting their soul. What happens if a gay donates blood to a child? Does that child become gay?

Oh for ****'s sake.

Reply 65

Renal

17

Profesh

'O+' is largely prevalent.

Although it's not much use if you're O neg, it's generally pretty unpleasant.

O neg is the universal donor although it's use as such is generally limited to traumatic emergencies where there's no time for a type and cross to be done.

Reply 66

rugdollap

Gay/lesbian/bisexual/homosexuals should not be allowed to donate blood. For religious people, being given this blood is corrupting their soul. What happens if a gay donates blood to a child? Does that child become gay?

Gay men donating blood is unethical in my opinion. There are research that claims gay is a result of an illness. Just theories but I believe them.

What an imbecile!

Reply 67

Profesh

As is proscribing the donation of blood by those who have tested positive for HIV. Your point?

It may be discriminate, but at least there's a reasonable medical excuse for doing so. Banning gay men from giving blood, irrespective of whether they have any STD's is pure discrimination, without any medical reason.

Aids/HIV is no longer Gods 'plague', or 'punishment' for homosexuals, as some bigots liked to claim in the 80's, because it is proven fact that all over the world, especially here in the UK, heterosexuals now make up the landslide majority of those people who have contracted AIDS.

If one wishes to discriminate against gays, and ban them from giving blood, they have to come up with a better excuse.

Reply 68

Lib North

I am not usually intolerant to other opinions, but I have to say the people arguing in favour of gay men being allowed to donate are looking increasingly foolish.

Oh really? You, and the other users here have yet to post any solid reasons for discriminating against gay men giving blood. If anyone is looking foolish (and homophobic) on this thread, it's you, and those who are arguing from your perspective!

Reply 69

Oh for pity's sake. Homosexual men have a far higher rate of infection for HIV than the rest of the population. That's the incredibly obvious reason why. Just as malaria is far more prevalent amongst people who have just spent two years in Africa.

Reply 70

Lib North

Oh for pity's sake. Homosexual men have a far higher rate of infection for HIV than the rest of the population. That's the incredibly obvious reason why. Just as malaria is far more prevalent amongst people who have just spent two years in Africa.

Perhaps 10 years ago, but the difference is much slimmer now, and is still closing.

Reply 71

Esquire

1

If all the blood is tested for HIV anyway, it shouldn't matter who gives the blood therefore this is discrimination. The argument about gay men being more likely to have HIV is irrelevant. It's ridiculous that gay men are being discriminated against in this way, and it's just another way of saying that gay men are somehow "unclean" or the word Hitler liked to use: degenerate. I think that it's really wrong that gays are being shunned from giving blood, something which is meant to be an altruistic act.

Reply 72

Esquire

If all the blood is tested for HIV anyway, it shouldn't matter who gives the blood therefore this is discrimination. The argument about gay men being more likely to have HIV is irrelevant. It's ridiculous that gay men are being discriminated against in this way, and it's just another way of saying that gay men are somehow "unclean" or the word Hitler liked to use: degenerate. I think that it's really wrong that gays are being shunned from giving blood, something which is meant to be an altruistic act.

Well said.

The blood donated is screened for HIV anyway, so why does it matter who gives the blood. Its pure, blatant discrimination.

Reply 73

-1984-

Perhaps 10 years ago, but the difference is much slimmer now, and is still closing.

Well from the American Centre For Disease Control, the figures in 2004 were that men who had homosexual sex, despite being only about 5-7% of the population accounted for 70% of all male adult HIV infections. (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/msm.htm). The rates, even today, are tremendously higher in the gay community.

Even more significantly, the same link details that:

"Approximately 25% of people in the United States who are infected with HIV do not know they are infected"

and

"In a recent study of young MSM [men who have sex with men], 77% of those who tested HIV-positive mistakenly believed that they were not infected"

Esquire

If all the blood is tested for HIV anyway, it shouldn't matter who gives the blood therefore this is discrimination. The argument about gay men being more likely to have HIV is irrelevant. It's ridiculous that gay men are being discriminated against in this way, and it's just another way of saying that gay men are somehow "unclean" or the word Hitler liked to use: degenerate. I think that it's really wrong that gays are being shunned from giving blood, something which is meant to be an altruistic act.

Oh, the reductio ad Hitlerum. Very clever.

If you'd read the thread, you'd realise that the HIV testing of blood is far from 100% reliable. If it was, then of course they'd let gay men give blood, but it isn't and so by exempting those likely to be carriers they are dramatically reducing the chances of any infection from transfusion.

Even with the present screening regime, infection does occur very occasionally from blood transfusions.

Reply 74

-1984-

Perhaps 10 years ago, but the difference is much slimmer now, and is still closing.

Well from the American Centre For Disease Control, the figures in 2004 were that men who had homosexual sex, despite being only about 5-7% of the population accounted for 70% of all male adult HIV infections. (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/msm.htm). The rates, even today, are tremendously higher in the gay community.

Even more significantly, the same link details that:

"Approximately 25% of people in the United States who are infected with HIV do not know they are infected"

and

"In a recent study of young MSM [men who have sex with men], 77% of those who tested HIV-positive mistakenly believed that they were not infected"

Esquire

If all the blood is tested for HIV anyway, it shouldn't matter who gives the blood therefore this is discrimination. The argument about gay men being more likely to have HIV is irrelevant. It's ridiculous that gay men are being discriminated against in this way, and it's just another way of saying that gay men are somehow "unclean" or the word Hitler liked to use: degenerate. I think that it's really wrong that gays are being shunned from giving blood, something which is meant to be an altruistic act.

Oh, the reductio ad Hitlerum. Very clever.

If you'd read the thread, you'd realise that the HIV testing of blood is far from 100% reliable. If it was, then of course they'd let gay men give blood, but it isn't and so by exempting those likely to be carriers they are dramatically reducing the chances of any infection from transfusion.

Reply 75

Esquire

1

Lib North

If you'd read the thread, you'd realise that the HIV testing of blood is far from 100% reliable. If it was, then of course they'd let gay men give blood, but it isn't and so by exempting those likely to be carriers they are dramatically reducing the chances of any infection from transfusion.

I don't really believe that HIV testing isn't 100% reliable. For example if the test was not reliable then how would they know that of MSM 77% were HIV positive that didn't believe they were. Also if 25% of people infected with HIV believe that they don't carry HIV then how do they know that extra 25% exist, and furthermore how would they know they had HIV when the test isn't reliable? Moreover where's the link between not knowing you carry HIV and being gay.
Isn't it obvious that MSM that have unprotected sex are more likely to get themselves checked out that any other HIV carrying group. Therefore if anything accepting gay blood would be safer than say South African blood...

Reply 76

Esquire

1

For future reference don't trivialise my argument just because I am a maths student.

Reply 77

Esquire

I don't really believe that HIV testing isn't 100% reliable. For example if the test was not reliable then how would they know that of MSM 77% were HIV positive that didn't believe they were.

Because, as also mentioned previously, a standard HIV test can take up to 90 days to give any degree of certainty of results. The HIV tests on blood are different since many parts of the transfusion subjects have a short shelf life.

To steal some info from wikipedia: donated blood lasts only "28-42 days. Platelets, which contain clotting agents, last only 5 days". Time is somewhat significant. The tests carried out on blood are constantly updating and improving but, particularly in less developed countries, the screenings are totally unsatisfactory alone and will still allow infected blood to be transfused. Also take into account that administrative errors could occur and infected blood could be either unscreened or poorly processed and used in transfusions.

Even normal HIV tests give false negative results on occasion. So if anything, the statistics mentioned on the CDC website could under-represent the real figures.

Moreover where's the link between not knowing you carry HIV and being gay.

I didn't say there was one, I was simply illustrating that asking people to tick a 'I don't have HIV' box would be ineffective in stopping infected people from donating and, as such, exclusion of groups with higher rates of infection does have the effect of limiting the number of infected donations.

Isn't it obvious that MSM that have unprotected sex are more likely to get themselves checked out that any other HIV carrying group. Therefore if anything accepting gay blood would be safer than say South African blood...

It may well be, which is why someone who had lived in South Africa would (to my knowledge) have restrictions on donating too.

Either way, as to knowing whether or not they had HIV, I think the figures I mentioned above largely speak for themselves.

Reply 78