Banning gay men from giving blood is stupid

[Lizard_Destroyer]

I mean, come on, "Are a man who has had sex with another man since 1977, even once"

Really?  I mean, I know my blood is clean.  As opposed to every straight friend I have, I get my blood tested for disease, every few months.  As does my magnanimous partner.  

Woah I was not even aware this was a thing still. That's disgusting. As long as they are tested there should be no issues.

The tests look for anti-bodies. What are anti-bodies? They are created by your immune system to fight off viruses. If you have anti-bodies of whatever in you're system, it means that you have effectively fought off the virus. This is basic 6th grade science... why is the most basic & obvious discarded? For Profits... that''s why!

[Ron~Popeil]

This is a difficult issue. If there is in fact a known higher risk of transmitting a disease from the blood of male homosexuals I can see not allowing them to give blood if there is no absolute way to rule out these diseases. At the same time it smacks of prejudice to exclude them.

My brother is a homosexual and I know how difficult it can be when you are treated as less than human, but my wife had 3 blood transfusions back in the early 1980's that could have been a death sentence for her so I can see both sides of this. 

We need to move this discussion beyond politics and focus on the human side of it.

[Candystripes]

This is a kind of right that MAY have some kind of threat. Rethink about it, it isn't stupid.

[hodap]

This is a difficult issue. If there is in fact a known higher risk of transmitting a disease from the blood of male homosexuals I can see not allowing them to give blood if there is no absolute way to rule out these diseases. At the same time it smacks of prejudice to exclude them.

My brother is a homosexual and I know how difficult it can be when you are treated as less than human, but my wife had 3 blood transfusions back in the early 1980's that could have been a death sentence for her so I can see both sides of this. 

We need to move this discussion beyond politics and focus on the human side of it.

Right. Political correctness is getting in the way of issue.

[Lizard_Destroyer]

HIV is a retro-virus. Retro-viruses are harmless, everyone is full of them.

[Ron~Popeil]

HIV is a retro-virus. Retro-viruses are harmless, everyone is full of them.

Says the person with an infowars link in their signature. What is with all the tin foil hat stuff lately?

[Mike Christ]

This is such a sensationalist thread and we've got far bigger issues in society to be concerned about imo.

The possibility of airborne Ebola does take precedence over this, I agree.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33277/title/Ebola-from-Pigs-to-Monkeys/

That's old news; they kept the two in very close proximity for an extended period of time, inevitably it was going to spread.  As long as you're not exposed to someone with ebola for extended periods of time, you're probably not going to catch it; you have much greater odds of catching and dying from the flu.

[bryant.coleman]

Every single population group, which is having an above average prevalence of diseases which are spread through blood should be banned from donating blood. For every state / region, a HIV prevalence survey should be done. If the HIV prevalence for a particular population group (such as gays, IDUs, sex-workers, truck drivers, prisoners, bankers.etc) is more than 10 times the general prevalence, then that group should be excluded from donating blood.

And since HIV was first discovered among the homosexuals (it was exclusively a disease among the gays for more than a decade, before spreading to the general population through blood donated from the gays) I am skeptical about using blood derived from them.

[Mobius]

HIV is a retro-virus. Retro-viruses are harmless, everyone is full of them.

HIV will eventually turn into AIDS which will kill you (it actually makes it easier for sickness to kill you, but the point is still there). If you have HIV it will eventually turn into AIDS.

[jakedeez]

I don't have HIV or AIDs.  I am in a magnanimous relationship with my boyfriend.  We both get tested every other month.  Not just for aids, but full STD panels.  Why can't I give blood?  A good answer...

HIV is a retro-virus. Retro-viruses are harmless, everyone is full of them.

HIV will eventually turn into AIDS which will kill you (it actually makes it easier for sickness to kill you, but the point is still there). If you have HIV it will eventually turn into AIDS.

This isn't strictly true - but is in practicality.

[Wilikon]

We both get tested every other month

Why so often if you trust each other?

Health is not about being politically correct. As soon as you inject PC into the mix you may end up with hepatitis c, or worse. Not giving blood is not the end of your life. What other things can you do to help out on your free time? You don't have enough free time? How much can you give to your favorite blood bank? This is how things work really.

[bryant.coleman]

We both get tested every other month

Why so often if you trust each other?

Health is not about being politically correct. As soon as you inject PC into the mix you may end up with hepatitis c, or worse. Not giving blood is not the end of your life. What other things can you do to help out on your free time? You don't have enough free time? How much can you give to your favorite blood bank? This is how things work really.

OK.... I have a compromise solution.

Let there be two types of blood banks. The first type should accept blood from everyone, without any restriction at all. The second type should accept blood only from the safe groups.

Let the consumers (sic) decide which blood they want.  

[jakedeez]

We both get tested every other month

Why so often if you trust each other?

Best practice. 

[ellen_me]

I agree that it should be more about the safety or health not on sexuality.

[Ron~Popeil]

We both get tested every other month

Why so often if you trust each other?

Health is not about being politically correct. As soon as you inject PC into the mix you may end up with hepatitis c, or worse. Not giving blood is not the end of your life. What other things can you do to help out on your free time? You don't have enough free time? How much can you give to your favorite blood bank? This is how things work really.

That is kind of the point I think. If there is even a slight risk of something being wrong and it isn't completely preventable you have to make the tough choice. Even a slight risk is too much.

[Wilikon]

We both get tested every other month

Why so often if you trust each other?

Best practice. 

That's at least an average of what... 6, 7 tests a year? Unless you are in the porn industry then yes that would make best practice sense.
Anyway don't forget the thousands of other ways you can still massively help your next of kin, blood relatives or not.

[kuroman]

As I explained before the risk involved with gay community is high and the blood test are not reliable enough, if blood test was 100% reliable, this won't be a non issue, but it isn't the case, and for this same reason, people with high risk (it's not limited to gay) http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-alphabetical-listing
As for other countries it depends but according to redcross I don't see any limitation on this matter

[zeeshan98210]

If they are brave enough to have their veins fierce with a big needle and see their blood flowing to the blood bag. Then why not?

[counter]

So what if the person is not openly gay?  They can still give blood right?  So that would mean the system is very flawed in my opinion.  I could be wrong and would like someone to explain how if so.

[RodeoX]

But wont the gay blood make me gay? Or maybe if I just got a little bit of it I would have better fashion sense.