Should gay men be allowed to give blood?

people do.

Is it right that gay men are denied the chance of giving blood purely because of their sexuality?

Hmm, wonder if knowingly giving blood whilst HIV+ would count as GBH if transmission occured... thinking it probably would, as there is no real difference between sex and blood transfusion (in the facts of HIV transference). Would you have to have intent of transferring for that though, or would the courts hold that HIV testing was so unreliable that it was an 'unacceptable risk' and thus you could be reckless by thinking it'd get picked up by the system? And if so, how about if you go and give blood, having a reasonable belief that you might be positive, with the aim of getting the HIV test?

Sorry, thinking aloud. It's a habit i pick up at four in the morning. But we seem to have a decent amount of lawyers around here so does anyone want to take a guess?

So would it be terribly wrong if I just lied? If I were tested and knew I was HIV free, why don't I just lie when giving blood?

Interesting moral question. If you're absolutely certain you don't have HIV, then I suppose it's fair enough. Then again, I'm not very good when it comes to offering moral guidance.

Why do you want to give blood so much anyway?

As long as they go through the same screening for blood-carried diseases as hetero's do, then there is no scientific reason why not that I know of. However, for some the idea of receiving blood from a gay person may be, um, uncomfortable [NOT MY VIEW]. Other than that, I can think of no objection.

Because I think that it's the right thing to do, I think more people should do it. Also it's annoying when everyone keeps asking me 'well why don't you give blood?!'.
Anyways I wouldn't do it unless I was absolutely sure I was disease free. I mean personally I'm pretty sure I don't have HIV, but you never know.

I suppose the broad exemption saves time and money which would otherwise have to be spent hearing individual cases and substantiating claims.

So lets get extreme then shall we. HIV is rather prevalent in developing countries, particularly in Africa. Now, many of these people immigrate to Britain, and since we would be spending a lot of money interviewing them all, why don't we just ban all black people from donating? Obviously such a policy would be unacceptable, for the same reason that the current policy is unacceptable. The difference in risk is minimal, the stigma it would cause is severe, the implementation is dodgy, and the reduced amount of blood suplied is likely to cause more harm ( operations are already being postponed or even cancelled due to lack of blood ).

You've not read the thread either then?

Somehting stupid that someone said to me, but also made me think: "You want to be a doctor? But you're gay? What if you get HIV and accidentally transfer it to a patient?"

Now the person who said this was actually just being an ignorant homophobic moron, but perhaps by the NBS's rules he may have a point. The NBS said no man who has had sexual contact (protected or otherwise) with another man can give blood because of the possibility he may be infected. Should MSM be allowed to be doctors? What if they nicked a finger with a scalpel by accident, or something similar, and infected a patient?

Somehting stupid that someone said to me, but also made me think: "You want to be a doctor? But you're gay? What if you get HIV and accidentally transfer it to a patient?"

Now the person who said this was actually just being an ignorant homophobic moron, but perhaps by the NBS's rules he may have a point. The NBS said no man who has had sexual contact (protected or otherwise) with another man can give blood because of the possibility he may be infected. Should MSM be allowed to be doctors? What if they nicked a finger with a scalpel by accident, or something similar, and infected a patient?

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!

Hmm, wonder if knowingly giving blood whilst HIV+ would count as GBH if transmission occured... thinking it probably would, as there is no real difference between sex and blood transfusion (in the facts of HIV transference). Would you have to have intent of transferring for that though, or would the courts hold that HIV testing was so unreliable that it was an 'unacceptable risk' and thus you could be reckless by thinking it'd get picked up by the system? And if so, how about if you go and give blood, having a reasonable belief that you might be positive, with the aim of getting the HIV test?

Sorry, thinking aloud. It's a habit i pick up at four in the morning. But we seem to have a decent amount of lawyers around here so does anyone want to take a guess?

I think you'll find the NHS has very strict rules on blood transference, in case it happens the other way around...

Dica (2003) surely? You have the option of poisoning too. But I'm more of a constitutional lawyer rather than a criminal one.

We already have hugely broad exemptions for anyone who has even visited developing countries, never mind come from them.