Should h0mosexuals be allowed to donate blood?

Not really true; anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV. As a result, HIV is significantly more common among gay men. Despite this, though, the number of lives saved through a decrease in stale blood transfusions dwarfs the increased number of HIV infections resulting from transfusion, so it would still be best to lift the ban entirely.iamveryangry

[QUOTE="iamveryangry"]Not really true; anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV. As a result, HIV is significantly more common among gay men. Despite this, though, the number of lives saved through a decrease in stale blood transfusions dwarfs the increased number of HIV infections resulting from transfusion, so it would still be best to lift the ban entirely.foxhound_fox

Not necessarily - just a greater likelihood.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]Men who had sex with men was a significantly higher risk group for HIV infection in the 80's and 90's. That was not unfounded. Your risk of contracting HIV is signficantly higher with certain types of intercourse. Two of the highest risk groups in the 80's and 90's were gay men and IV drug users. They were affected disproportionately. Certainly the idea that all gay men are promiscuos is unfounded, but gay men were a higher risk group. This was proven in the medical literature. It doesnt mean that being gay is bad or anything along those lines, just that male on male intercourse carries a much higher risk of transmission of HIV. Male to female intercourse carries around a 1 in 1000 risk per episode. Male to male intercourse is about 7 to 10 times more likely to trasmit HIV per episode of unprotected sex. The ability to test for HIV has improved over the last 20 years. We still currently test for the antibody to HIV as opposed to HIV itself. Most people will develop antibodies within about 3-4 wks of infection, however, there is a small percentage that will have HIV but not develop antibodies to it for several weeks to months. So it was possible to miss it. Current testing is more accurate and specific, but still is not perfect. It makes sense to avoid high risk groups - however - a distinction must be made between homosexual males and sexually active homosexual males. The risk only exists for those that are sexually active.foxhound_fox

You seem to be trying to imply that heterosexuals don't participate in anal sex.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]Dependent on whether or not there is any noticeable increase in HIV between gay men and straight men.iamveryangry

Isn't blood normally tested for HIV and such regardless of who donates? I don't see the practical point in banning blood from homosexuals.Elraptor

The National Blood Service screens all donations for HIV and other infections. However, there is a "window period" after infection during which it is impossible to detect the virus.BBC

there is no reason why they shouldnt be able to. these primitive rules are based solely on baseless stereotypes and their abolition is far overdo.

I have mixed feelings on this one. My first reaction is/was "Of course gays should be allowed to donate blood. Why not?"

Then I started to think about the first time I donated about two years ago. As part of the screening, there was this long questionaire that asked a heck of a lot of questions about a heck of a lot of different topics. Questions about sexual intercourse (both straight and gay Questions about drugs. Questions aboutother "risky" behavior and people's history in general.

Anyway,assuming that the primary reason gayscurrently can't donate is because of HIV/AIDS, I can kinda see where the proponents of the ban are coming from. Last figures I heard,straight people make up about 90% of the population, but only have 15% of knownAIDS cases. So, as much as it might be 'uncomfortable' for some people in this PC age, I can kinda see how this is more of a screening issue than an anti-gay moral stance.

Redcross pleads for more blood donations due to shortages.

Whilst:

Gays cannot donate blood.

Something is wrong here.

I said this before in an earlier thread.

I understand the reason for the ban back in the 80's.

but don't we have good enough detector's that can pick up on unwanted diseases, conditions, and STD's. and apply them to ALL donars before they can donate their blood?

Of course. It's silly to arbitrarily shrink the number of potential blood donors. This ban has most likely costed lives over the years. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Of course. It's silly to arbitrarily shrink the number of potential blood donors. This ban has most likely costed lives over the years. sonicare

Gay blood is no different than straight blood, so yes.scorch-62

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="scorch-62"]Gay blood is no different than straight blood, so yes.toast_burner

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="sonicare"] Planet_Pluto

I understand the reasoning behind the ban. It was done for medical reasons and not because of dislike of a specific group. If you studied the era, the issues and implications, and how contaminated blood DID pass on the disease then i don't think you'd act as though the issue was done lightly.

The tests are much better now in catching the disease....but it's still not 100% perfect.

I do not think removing the ban is a bad thing.....as long as those donating blood are responsible enough not to do so while they may be a high risk. Which is not saying all gay people are a risk.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] They aren't the only risk group though. SaudiFury

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Of course. It's silly to arbitrarily shrink the number of potential blood donors. This ban has most likely costed lives over the years. -Sun_Tzu-

I said this before in an earlier thread.

I understand the reason for the ban back in the 80's.

but don't we have good enough detector's that can pick up on unwanted diseases, conditions, and STD's. and apply them to ALL donars before they can donate their blood?

SaudiFury

http://www.donateblood.com.au/files/images/Male%20to%20male%20sex%20Fact%20Sheet_June%202010.pdf

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="sonicare"] Planet_Pluto

i see no reaosn why not.. it snot like sexual preference is genetic. i swear for all the smart moves human beings make.. we have 10 other stupid idea's.

i see no reaosn why not.. it snot like sexual preference is genetic. i swear for all the smart moves human beings make.. we have 10 other stupid idea's.

ionusX

i see no reaosn why not.. it snot like sexual preference is genetic. i swear for all the smart moves human beings make.. we have 10 other stupid idea's.

ionusX

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

i see no reaosn why not.. it snot like sexual preference is genetic. i swear for all the smart moves human beings make.. we have 10 other stupid idea's.

toast_burner

blood contains DNA no.. so giving it to someone else is technically a delievery of genetic material

though i understand the reasoning..

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] They aren't the only risk group though. -Sun_Tzu-

I think this is a situation in which, because of a lot of legitimately horrible things that have happened in the past, gays have it completely wrong. I don't see this as anti-gay, I see it as part of a screening process. There is such a need for blood donation. The organizations care primarily about that, not pushing an agenda. I haven't seen anything to make me think otherwise.

EDIT: In the field of construction, things like this come up once in a while. Every so often I hear about someone who, say, wears a turbin. Then, when they are not allowed to fulfill specific roles where hard hats are required, jump to the conclusion that everybody is against that persons religion. It's not the case. There are safety rules in place for a reason. It has nothing to do with being anti-this or anti-that.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

i see no reaosn why not.. it snot like sexual preference is genetic. i swear for all the smart moves human beings make.. we have 10 other stupid idea's.

ionusX

blood contains DNA no.. so giving it to someone else is technically a delievery of genetic material

though i understand the reasoning..

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

i see no reaosn why not.. it snot like sexual preference is genetic. i swear for all the smart moves human beings make.. we have 10 other stupid idea's.

blood contains DNA no.. so giving it to someone else is technically a delievery of genetic material

though i understand the reasoning..

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] They aren't the only risk group though. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]I think the word you're looking for is contagious, not genetic

sonicare

blood contains DNA no.. so giving it to someone else is technically a delievery of genetic material

though i understand the reasoning..

okay then i accept the correction.

[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]

I said this before in an earlier thread.

I understand the reason for the ban back in the 80's.

but don't we have good enough detector's that can pick up on unwanted diseases, conditions, and STD's. and apply them to ALL donars before they can donate their blood?

jimmyjammer69

http://www.donateblood.com.au/files/images/Male%20to%20male%20sex%20Fact%20Sheet_June%202010.pdf

----------

EDIT:

That said my immediate thought then is not to do a ban on all homosexual blood donations but rather do it on a case by case basis. For example whether your homosexual or heterosexual if you have been sleeping around a lot with a lot of recent partners then i can understand if they don't accept that specific person. Or if the person - regardless of orientation - has some pre-existing medical condition that would render them void for donation.

but simply being homosexual i don't think is grounds for an all out ban.

hope that makes some sense.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]

I said this before in an earlier thread.

I understand the reason for the ban back in the 80's.

but don't we have good enough detector's that can pick up on unwanted diseases, conditions, and STD's. and apply them to ALL donars before they can donate their blood?

SaudiFury

http://www.donateblood.com.au/files/images/Male%20to%20male%20sex%20Fact%20Sheet_June%202010.pdf

That said my immediate thought then is not to do a ban on all homosexual blood donations but rather do it on a case by case basis. For example whether your homosexual or heterosexual if you have been sleeping around a lot with a lot of recent partners then i can understand if they don't accept that specific person. Or if the person - regardless of orientation - has some pre-existing medical condition that would render them void for donation.

This makes the most sense and tbh I wouldn't be surprised if this is already policy in some places. I hope it is at least.

I think this is a situation in which, because of a lot of legitimately horrible things that have happened in the past, gays have it completely wrong. I don't see this as anti-gay, I see it as part of a screening process. There is such a need for blood donation. The organizations care primarily about that, not pushing an agenda. I haven't seen anything to make me think otherwise.

Planet_Pluto

I wouldn't call it anti-gay, but the fact that there is still to this day a lifetime ban in the US on anyone who has had sex with a male at least once since 1977, despite how far HIV awareness and HIV testing has come (you don't even have to test for antibodies anymore) does show an incredible amount of apathy towards the gay community. And this ban does not reflect the view of organizations that promote blood donation. Groups like the AABB and the Red cross both oppose this ban.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]

I said this before in an earlier thread.

I understand the reason for the ban back in the 80's.

but don't we have good enough detector's that can pick up on unwanted diseases, conditions, and STD's. and apply them to ALL donars before they can donate their blood?

SaudiFury

http://www.donateblood.com.au/files/images/Male%20to%20male%20sex%20Fact%20Sheet_June%202010.pdf

----------

EDIT:

That said my immediate thought then is not to do a ban on all homosexual blood donations but rather do it on a case by case basis. For example whether your homosexual or heterosexual if you have been sleeping around a lot with a lot of recent partners then i can understand if they don't accept that specific person. Or if the person - regardless of orientation - has some pre-existing medical condition that would render them void for donation.

but simply being homosexual i don't think is grounds for an all out ban.

hope that makes some sense.

TBH, I'm on the fence here - it does seem like a tactless policy, but I'm not sure that should be the first concern when it comes to dealing with blood donations. Ultimately, this is just a form of risk assessment, and to be fair, a lot of risk groups are filtered out. Personally I can't give blood because I love peanuts too much. I don't put that down to a conspiracy against peanut lovers or the possibility that the NHS just doesn't want my blood; it's simply that I'm in a statistical high-risk donor group for post-transfusion complications.

Nevermind the possibility of transmitting HIV, the bigger concern, in my mind, is the possibility of normal people catching the Gay from the blood.

(Not serious post.)

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Thats why they are not the only risk group that don't make it past screening.

LJS9502_basic

[What's most important is that people who need blood transfusions can safely receive blood transfusions. An outright ban on all homosexuals does not achieve that goal, which is why organizations that promote blood donation have been calling for a change in policy. The highest risk factor vis-a-vis HIV is promiscuity. Yet a monogamous homosexual male can never donate blood, while a promiscuous heterosexual male, or even worse, a promiscuous heterosexual woman, will find it much easier to donate.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Suzy_Q_Kazoo"][QUOTE="Fightingfan"]What's the difference? Does Gay blood not work equally well in a blood transfusion?Fightingfan

True, but in the 1980s they had less knowledge about it and HIV was more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals (if I'm correct it still is, I remember in my highschool sociology book - I took the class in 2007- it had a pie graph showing how people with HIV got infected and a very large portion was due to "homosexual intercourse"). I think at one point in time HIV was known as GRID gay related immunodeficiency disorder).

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Thats why they are not the only risk group that don't make it past screening.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] But they are the only risk group that, in many cases, cannot even potentially donate blood, simply because of their orientation. It's not even an option for them. A promiscuous heterosexual man is a much higher HIV risk than a monogamous homosexual man, and a promiscuous heterosexual woman is an even higher risk, but it is much easier for those demographics to donate blood than homosexual men. Gays are the only demographic subject to an outright ban in many parts of the world, including the US. If a man has had sex with another man only once since 1977, they will never be able to give blood in the US, despite the fact that there have been huge blood donor shortages in the US the past few years. -Sun_Tzu-

They're fighting for everything, even equality to give blood. I would prefer that they recent provide test results, everyone should actually, before providing blood.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

I think this is a situation in which, because of a lot of legitimately horrible things that have happened in the past, gays have it completely wrong. I don't see this as anti-gay, I see it as part of a screening process. There is such a need for blood donation. The organizations care primarily about that, not pushing an agenda. I haven't seen anything to make me think otherwise.

-Sun_Tzu-

I wouldn't call it anti-gay, but the fact that there is still to this day a lifetime ban in the US on anyone who has had sex with a male at least once since 1977, despite how far HIV awareness and HIV testing has come (you don't even have to test for antibodies anymore) does show an incredible amount of apathy towards the gay community. And this ban does not reflect the view of organizations that promote blood donation. Groups like the AABB and the Red cross both oppose this ban.

I don't see why they shouldn't.The risk of catching the gay virus are pretty slim.

and 15 people are to chicken to post.

I don't see why they shouldn't.The risk of catching the gay virus are pretty slim.

and 15 people are to chicken to post.

Kcube

Why not just let them do a blood test?