Gay Men Cannot Donate Blood. Discrimination or Precaution?

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

One day while on a Buzzfeed Yellow Youtube Binge, I come across a fact that, gay men are not allowed to donate blood. Just to make sure I wasn't having the wool pulled over my eyes, I checked my facts, and it was true. Gay men are not permitted to donate blood.

Is this discrimination, or a necessary precaution?

[Vlerchan]

What might it be a precaution against?

[Elysium]

Precaution against what? Becoming gay or something? First of all, why is being gay a bad thing, and second of all, it doesn't work that way. It's blatant discrimination, plain and simple.

[sqishy]

Probably more precautionary than it needs to, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections get passed a lot by heterosexual means too..

[Living For Love]

Discrimination. As long as you meet the requirements for being allowed to donate blood, you should be able to do it. Our sexual orientation doesn't change our blood, and gay men are as likely to get infections as heterosexual people.

[Gamma Male]

Don't they always test blood for disease anyway?

[Luminous]

It's discrimination. Anybody can have STDs or other illnesses transmitted by blood, not just gay men. I think there should just be a requirement that everyone who donates blood is tested for such diseases and provides proof that they do not have any when they donate.

[JamesSuperBoy]

Not sure about discrimination - but many people are (here in UK) not allowed to give blood donations as a precaution.

[Vlerchan]

What Gamma Male said.

If they're just hoping that if they avoid gays then they won't get any bad blood in then they're a really shit clinic.

[Microcosm]

That's bull shit... I'll have to look into this myself just to make sure. Not that I don't believe you but this is absurd. Gay men have nothing wrong with their blood.
Discrimination.

[Gigablue]

Statistically, gay men are more likely to have HIV. In the past, when HIV testing was still in its infancy, this regulation made sense. HIV tests used to have a rather high false negative rate, so someone could test negative for HIV, but still have it. If they were to donate blood, they could end up giving someone else HIV. This happened in the 80s, before they began testing the blood supply, and sporadically after they began testing, due to false negatives.

Right now, I don't think the ban makes much sense. Canada currently has a five year ban for gay men, which is a big improvement over the formed lifetime ban, but still unnecessary. HIV tests are sufficiently advanced that we don't need this precaution to guard against transmission. Everyone is tested before they donate blood, and the rate of HIV transmission from blood transfusions is very low.

I'd also like to point out that gay men aren't the only high risk group banned. IV drug users and sex trade workers are banned for the same reason. People from various West African countries are banned, due to the risk of HIV type O, which is harder to test for than the more common types M and N, and is most prevalent in West Africa. People who lived in the UK in the 80s and 90s are also banned, due to the risk of CJD. While I don't think most people would argue with the first two restrictions, the last two could easily be deemed racism. It's hard to know where to draw the line. We want as many people to donate, but we need to keep the blood supply safe.

In short, it's a complicated issue. I think the current ban had its place, but right now does more harm than good. However, it isn't just as simple as saying the ban is discrimination therefore it needs to go.

[gothy]

Don't they always test blood for disease anyway?

yes so therefore a prejudice and discrimination. but anyways, dontating blood is something someone does voluntarily to help others. if i was gay, id say "fuck it, if they are going to be cruel and discriminate, they dont deserve my blood."

[Gamma Male]

yes so therefore a prejudice and discrimination. but anyways, dontating blood is something someone does voluntarily to help others. if i was gay, id say "fuck it, if they are going to be cruel and discriminate, they dont deserve my blood."

I see where you're coming from, but it isn't the dying sick people who're discriminating, it's the FDA.

[Camazotz]

Statistically, gay men are more likely to have HIV. In the past, when HIV testing was still in its infancy, this regulation made sense. HIV tests used to have a rather high false negative rate, so someone could test negative for HIV, but still have it. If they were to donate blood, they could end up giving someone else HIV. This happened in the 80s, before they began testing the blood supply, and sporadically after they began testing, due to false negatives.

Right now, I don't think the ban makes much sense. Canada currently has a five year ban for gay men, which is a big improvement over the formed lifetime ban, but still unnecessary. HIV tests are sufficiently advanced that we don't need this precaution to guard against transmission. Everyone is tested before they donate blood, and the rate of HIV transmission from blood transfusions is very low.

I'd also like to point out that gay men aren't the only high risk group banned. IV drug users and sex trade workers are banned for the same reason. People from various West African countries are banned, due to the risk of HIV type O, which is harder to test for than the more common types M and N, and is most prevalent in West Africa. People who lived in the UK in the 80s and 90s are also banned, due to the risk of CJD. While I don't think most people would argue with the first two restrictions, the last two could easily be deemed racism. It's hard to know where to draw the line. We want as many people to donate, but we need to keep the blood supply safe.

In short, it's a complicated issue. I think the current ban had its place, but right now does more harm than good. However, it isn't just as simple as saying the ban is discrimination therefore it needs to go.

^ This!

You guys are acting like they don't want gay blood. If you're gay but never had sex, you can donate blood. Like Gigablue said, they just wanted to be careful with HIV in the 80s.

Now it's not much of a problem, and I would definitely call the current ban a form of discrimination. At the height of HIV, I would say it was a necessary precaution. And after 9/11, tons of people tried donating blood and found out that they had HIV.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with gays donating blood. It's understandable why the ban was put into place at the time, but it's totally outdated.

[LouBerry]

It's Discrimination. Idiotic discrimination.

[phuckphace]

Statistically, gay men are more likely to have HIV. In the past, when HIV testing was still in its infancy, this regulation made sense. HIV tests used to have a rather high false negative rate, so someone could test negative for HIV, but still have it. If they were to donate blood, they could end up giving someone else HIV. This happened in the 80s, before they began testing the blood supply, and sporadically after they began testing, due to false negatives.

Right now, I don't think the ban makes much sense. Canada currently has a five year ban for gay men, which is a big improvement over the formed lifetime ban, but still unnecessary. HIV tests are sufficiently advanced that we don't need this precaution to guard against transmission. Everyone is tested before they donate blood, and the rate of HIV transmission from blood transfusions is very low.

I'd also like to point out that gay men aren't the only high risk group banned. IV drug users and sex trade workers are banned for the same reason. People from various West African countries are banned, due to the risk of HIV type O, which is harder to test for than the more common types M and N, and is most prevalent in West Africa. People who lived in the UK in the 80s and 90s are also banned, due to the risk of CJD. While I don't think most people would argue with the first two restrictions, the last two could easily be deemed racism. It's hard to know where to draw the line. We want as many people to donate, but we need to keep the blood supply safe.

In short, it's a complicated issue. I think the current ban had its place, but right now does more harm than good. However, it isn't just as simple as saying the ban is discrimination therefore it needs to go.

good post. although, I'm gay and I'm fine with the ban remaining in place until a total eradication of HIV is accomplished, smallpox style. considering that AIDS is a terminal disease, I think there's no such thing as too much caution when it comes to this.

tbh I think this is only a big deal because the gay lobby is busy looking for anything to cry about (anything less than complete and total enthusiasm for unprotected bathhouse buttsecks = DISKRIMUNASHUN) I bet if MSM blood donation was never banned, donating blood wouldn't even cross their minds.

[Ben_Frost]

This is shameless discrimination, there are many new techniques for screening donated blood in search of HIV, Hep B, Hep C and many other bloodborne diseases known and practiced worldwide.

[Blood]

Precaution against what? Becoming gay or something? First of all, why is being gay a bad thing, and second of all, it doesn't work that way. It's blatant discrimination, plain and simple.

I agree with this.

Anyone can have AIDS, that's why everyone should be tested before donating. Gay men should be allowed the chance to donate blood. This is ridiculous.

[thatgothgirluknow]

being gay doesnt make u any differnt theres no reason they shouldnt be able to donate

[phuckphace]

it has been conclusively established that MSM (men who have sex with men) have far higher rates of HIV infection than heterosexuals in the US. saying "UGH well ANYONE can have HIV bigot!!1!1!" is, to say the least, glib, and misses the point.

it's actually pretty funny the extent to which people downplay these facts because the facts are bigoted or something. I would think the desire to keep as many people as possible from being infected by HIV would take precedence over fear of being seen as a bigot, but then again millennials aren't known for using their porn- and drug addled brains all that often.

[Gamma Male]

it has been conclusively established that MSM (men who have sex with men) have far higher rates of HIV infection than heterosexuals in the US. saying "UGH well ANYONE can have HIV bigot!!1!1!" is, to say the least, glib, and misses the point.

it's actually pretty funny the extent to which people downplay these facts because the facts are bigoted or something. I would think the desire to keep as many people as possible from being infected by HIV would take precedence over fear of being seen as a bigot, but then again millennials aren't known for using their porn- and drug addled brains all that often.

While it's true that when this policy was first created it was necessary, nowadays HIV testing has gotten much better and much more accurate, and the consequences of not allowing gay men to donate outweigh the the any benefits.

Also, the fact that a heterosexual male who admits to having sex with different partners very often can donate but a homosexual male in a monogamous relationship can't donate is discriminatory.

[Angry Elf]

Discrimination. The blood MUST be tested for diseases anyways before being used; therefore, what's the difference? Blood is blood, regardless of the orientation of the donor.

[Lovelife090994]

While it's true that when this policy was first created it was necessary, nowadays HIV testing has gotten much better and much more accurate, and the consequences of not allowing gay men to donate outweigh the the any benefits.

Also, the fact that a heterosexual male who admits to having sex with different partners very often can donate but a homosexual male in a monogamous relationship can't donate is discriminatory.

Not all heterosexuals are polyamorous or constantly with other partners and not all homosexuals are monogamous. To me they should test the blood and if the person can donate then let the person donate regardless.

[phuckphace]

Not all heterosexuals are polyamorous or constantly with other partners and not all homosexuals are monogamous.

this.^ monogamy is far more prevalent amongst heterosexuals than homosexuals. it's no accident that promiscuous gay men in San Francisco were the first demographic in North America to become infected with HIV in the early 80s. that's also why AIDS was originally known as "GRIDS", or "Gay Related Immunodeficiency Syndrome."

Edit: lollin at the poll results. c'mon guys.

[Lovelife090994]

this.^ monogamy is far more prevalent amongst heterosexuals than homosexuals. it's no accident that promiscuous gay men in San Francisco were the first demographic in North America to become infected with HIV in the early 80s. that's also why AIDS was originally known as "GRIDS", or "Gay Related Immunodeficiency Syndrome."

Edit: lollin at the poll results. c'mon guys.

People love to forget the 80s there. I am not hating, but no one can erase history. In the 80s AIDS was almost unheard of except for one group; homosexual men. I have no idea why, but AIDS was rampant throughout the LGBT then even more than it was in commonplace majority. Why? And look at the ideas then, homosexuality was viewed as different from the norm and in truth it is. Does this make it bad? No. But homosexuals are not always monogamous and not all heterosexuals are either. That's why we should base blood donations on individual health records. For instance, my mother is heterosexual but she cannot donate blood. You know why? She had hepatitis. Nothing to do with her sexuality. Maybe gays are banned from blood donations because AIDs is still rampant with many homosexuals so that the medical community showed bias. Again, that is not right, but generalizing will get us nowhere.

[Miserabilia]

I think I could see how that would be concidered logicaly statisticly because of HIV but maybe they should just check the blood for HIV instead of not alowing homosexuals to donate theirs.

[glad0s]

this.^ monogamy is far more prevalent amongst heterosexuals than homosexuals.

Considering there are far, far, far more heterosexuals that have existed than homosexuals (or rather, have practiced heterosexuality throughout their lifetime), that is quite statistically improbable. In America alone, only 3-8% declare to be gay/lesbian (http://carm.org/percent-population-homosexual), and we're one of the more prominent countries. Because this number is so small, we can only assume that homosexuals have a smaller number of sexual partners, on average, than heterosexuals.

it's no accident that promiscuous gay men in San Francisco were the first demographic in North America to become infected with HIV in the early 80s.

Not necessarily as a result of homosexuals having more sexual partners. Remember, the HIV and AIDS viruses are very slow to develop in the body; often takes around 8-10 years (depending on the strength of the immune system) for any sign of the disease to show up. Many of these gay individuals have also declared they served time in prison; the virus could have had its initial breeding ground in prisons and transmitted through homosexual behavior. Of course, the disease was first known as GRID because scientists and doctors believed it was only gay-related; however, because homosexuality isn't a disease, the virus spread to heterosexuals as well. Most heterosexuals, however, were not the first ones to report the virus because of how slow the disease is, so heterosexuals may have been the first ones to retrieve the virus.


And to answer the poll, precautions had to be made during the 80s because of the prominence of the disease and the misunderstanding of the virus. However, 30 years later, technology and advancements in knowledge allow us to see signs of the disease during blood tests (which every blood donor has to do), so gay men shouldn't be banned.

If there is still a legitimate scientific reason why gay men shouldn't give blood, logic would only follow that lesbian women shouldn't give blood as well.

[phuckphace]

Considering there are far, far, far more heterosexuals that have existed than homosexuals (or rather, have practiced heterosexuality throughout their lifetime), that is quite statistically improbable. In America alone, only 3-8% declare to be gay/lesbian (http://carm.org/percent-population-homosexual), and we're one of the more prominent countries.

I don't think you understand how statistics work. of course there are a lot fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals. but since HIV is more prevalent per capita amongst certain groups, there is thus a higher chance that a given individual from one of those groups will be HIV positive.

Let's say you have a small bowl and a large 42-gallon barrel. both are filled with beans. in the small bowl, 80% of the beans are red and 20% are white. in the barrel, 20% of the beans are red and 80% are white. a blindfolded person taking out a bean at random is more likely to pick a red one from the small bowl than from the barrel, because the distribution of red beans is higher in the bowl than the barrel, even though the total number of red beans in the barrel is higher than that of red beans in the bowl.

Because this number is so small, we can only assume that homosexuals have a smaller number of sexual partners, on average, than heterosexuals.

this is flawed reasoning. by this logic, if heterosexuals comprise say, 92% of the population, they should have an average number of sexual partners in the hundreds. but according to the established evidence (Google it) homosexuals have a higher number of sexual partners on average than heterosexuals do. average is the key word here.

[glad0s]

I don't think you understand how statistics work. of course there are a lot fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals. but since HIV is more prevalent per capita amongst certain groups, there is thus a higher chance that a given individual from one of those groups will be HIV positive.

I understand how statistics works.

What I meant to say, rather, is that because heterosexuals exist in greater numbers, the chances of them engaging in more than one sexual partner is greater than that of a homosexual since homosexuals are distributed among the population in a scattered manner. Thus, homosexuals are less likely to have more than one partner to engage in a sexual act because they must search for a partner with identical sexual preferences, which is more difficult than that of heterosexuals (especially with existing social customs). I didn't word my sentences quite as I intended.

[phuckphace]

I understand how statistics works.

What I meant to say, rather, is that because heterosexuals exist in greater numbers, the chances of them engaging in more than one sexual partner is greater than that of a homosexual since homosexuals are distributed among the population in a scattered manner. Thus, homosexuals are less likely to have more than one partner to engage in a sexual act because they must search for a partner with identical sexual preferences, which is more difficult than that of heterosexuals (especially with existing social customs). I didn't word my sentences quite as I intended.

Grindr, Craigslist, gay bars, etc. There is also a higher concentration of homosexuals within larger cities, especially in places like San Francisco. I live in the middle of the Bible Belt, and if I wanted to I could set up a Grindr profile and find some random guy to have sex with almost right away. while I'm not interested in doing so because that's fucking gross, thousands of others are doing it right now, bareback, and getting HIV.

Read through these statistics. LOL at the idea that homosexuals have a harder time getting laid.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/

[pjones]

my dad gives blood so i asked him. he said there is a form you fill out every time and you put a bar code on the form which is kept with the blood. he said they do ask if you have ever had unprotected sex, but don't ask if it was a guy or girl. if for some reason you decide your blood shouldn't be used you put the special bar code on your form, but all blood gets tested before it's stored to be used for someone.

[Perfectly Flawed]

When this rule was created it made a bit more sense, but as of now it's kind of ridiculous.

[Emerald Dream]

Let's try to stay on topic and not get too personal, please. That's not really how a debate works.

[Star Wolf]

I agree with this.

Anyone can have AIDS, that's why everyone should be tested before donating. Gay men should be allowed the chance to donate blood. This is ridiculous.

Exactly.

[plebble]

Well that's just the most offensive thing in the world. Being gay has no effect on blood!

[CrazyPerson101]

Gay Men should be able to donate blood. If they're worried about STDs and AIDs ad Etc, Str8 people can get them JUST AS EASILY.

[jwrj53]

I wrote this about MSM blood donation: Please read

The FDA openly discriminates against MSM, men who have sex with men, for nonsensical reasons, encouraging homophobia at the federal level. “Since 1983, Food and Drug Administration guidelines have disqualified men who have ever had sex with men from donating blood” (Sun Vanacore). According to the FDA, “This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion” (Vaccines, Bloods & Biologics); infact, “Male-to-male sex is the predominant route of HIV transmission in Australia” (Seed). These policies were created when AIDS was considered a “mark of shame and a death sentence” (Sun Vanacore). Another reason for the policies is that there is a “delay between time of exposure, and the time that a laboratory is able to detect evidence of infection” (Sun Vanacore). The FDA policy should be changed from a permanent blacklisting to a twelve-month deferral for MSM blood donors with a new partner because these policies are inconsistent, discriminatory, scientifically outdated, and even cost more lives than they save. By changing this ban, the United States will be joining the likes of nations such as “The United Kingdom and Brazil (which) have one-year deferral periods” (Sun Vanacore).
“Current blood donor eligibility criteria are largely inconsistent imposing significantly less restrictive deferrals to heterosexual men and women who engage in high-risk sexual behavior” (Valadez). Even people who have had sex with an HIV-positive person can still donate blood. “No similar questions were asked to screen out donors who engaged in other potentially risky sexual behavior” (Christensen). These policies do not reduce the HIV virus in the blood supply, they simply exclude a certain group. In fact “...a straight person could donate today after having unprotected sex with hundreds of partners” (Schaefer). There is a new “over-theh-counter mouth swab” (Sun Vanacore),which is even approved by the FDA. This swab takes twenty minutes, yet the FDA claims that “there is a marginal risk that the virus will go undetected” (Sun Vanacore). The FDA does not rely on these tests, which they claim are not accurate enough, yet they rely on asking “questions (to) donors about activities” (Sun Vanacore). Incidentally, the FDA believes the questionnaire is more accurate than the swab test they approve of. “Blood Centers rely on donors answering all of these medical questions honestly” (Sun Vanacore), rather than using a self-approved method which is exponentially more reliable. These inconsistencies provide a gateway to homophobia in America.
“The Blood Donor Questionnaire used to exclude MSM focuses inappropriately on the identity and type of partners rather than actual risks of sexual contact” (Cray). There are many other high-risk groups “such as minority women, and there are no standards prohibiting them from donating” (Denney). Condom use is almost perfect in preventing HIV transmission; yet, if the sex was with another man, they cannot donate. “In a study of discordant couples in Europe, among 123 couples who reported consistently using condoms, none of the uninfected partners became infected” (Condoms). In another study of “sero-discordant couples, no uninfected partners became infected” (Alford). This caters to the fact that straight couple having unprotected sex have a higher probability of contracting HIV than protected homosexual intercourse. However, the lower risk group is banned from donating, even when the high risk group is not. After a rejection due to his sexual orientation, Robert Valadez had this to say:
I felt like a walking contagion. Shamed and confused, I couldn't figure out where I had erred. I followed the rules of a progressive sexual mantra: I waited until I was "ready" to have sex, and I always used a condom. Was I now being judged by some archaic moral code? This couldn't possibly be an egregious act of discrimination, could it? I asked for an explanation, but the only one provided was something you might hear if you try to return a pair of used khakis at a clothing store: "Sorry, that's the policy."
The FDA is knowingly, and proudly, openly discriminating against homosexuals for unnecessary principles, making the victims feel like “walking contagions”. These people are treated worse than animals, although neither can get married or donate blood, only the person is protested and murdered due to his proud sexuality, which the government organizations, such as the FDA, feel should not only be existent, but promoted in biased discriminatory health policies set forth at a time of panic. Similar to the patriot acts, they were created in this sense of false terrorism for a scapegoated group allegedly protected by the constitution, where the acts themselves are against civil rights.
New technologies are constantly being made available to detect and treat HIV at increased effectiveness. However, the FDA believes relying on questionnaires, which, at the discretion of the answerer, could be answered extremely incorrectly. The issue the FDA has with the testing of gays is the small probability of a false negative result. A false negative occurs when someone is positive for HIV when they test negative. The probability of this occurring is 0.0001 (HIV Testing). However, the FDA runs two HIV tests, therefore the probability of having two HIV False Negative tests is 0.0000001; or one in one million. 28,782 gay men have HIV according to Basic Statistics. In addition, 75% of HIV positives already know they are HIV positive according to the FDA. Therefore, on average, it will take each of these unknowing men testing 13,898 times before one of them reaches a false negative. This risk is lower than the risk of non-MSM blood donors, where, according to America’s Blood Centers, three people annually contract HIV from blood transfusions. Another technology, which has been around for 15,000 years, is the condom. HIV is only transmitted between “10 percent of those using condoms inconsistently” (Alford). With education, the proportion of correct condom use can increase. In Australia,
The prevalence of HIV among blood donors for 5-year periods before (Period 1) and after(Period 2) implementing the revised 12-month deferral was compared. Using deidentified data from postdonation interviews with HIV-positive donors the proportion disclosing male-to-male sex as a risk factor was compared for the two periods. (Seed)
From this study, “All five men who have sex with men risk HIV infections during Period 2 were from donors whose risk was within the 12-month criterion for acceptability, who would have been deferred had they provided a complete history” (Seed). They concluded that they
found no evidence that the implementation of the 12-month deferral for male-to-male sex resulted in an increased recipient risk for HIV in Australia. The risk of noncompliance to the revised deferral rather than its duration appears to be the most important modifier of overall risk” (Seed).
Even our own United States government wishes to end the bigotry of FDA; “The federal government has one study in a planning stage and three studies under way that could eventually provide evidence to end the ban on blood donations from all gay men” (Wetzstein). Due to the two studies, and the increased technologies with the ability to detect HIV within a day of contracting with impeccable accuracy, in conjunction with condom education, supports the claim of a lower deferral period for MSM blood donors, if not entirely.
Allowing MSM to donate blood will increase the healthy blood supply. The Williams Institute estimates that “If MSM who have not had sex with another man in the past twelve months were permitted to donate… 53,269 additional men are likely to donate 89,716 pints each year” (Goldberg). It is no secret that our nation is at an all-time low for blood donation, and excluding healthy donors is not helping. In fact, “in June there was a nationwide shortfall, with donations down more than 10% across the county” (Christensen). The FDA even realizes the damages of excluding healthy people:
On the FDA's FAQ webpage about this issue, one of the questions is, "Doesn't the policy eliminate healthy donors at a time when more donors are needed because of blood shortages?" The answer: "FDA realizes that this policy will defer many healthy donors." Add this to the list of nonsensical items. (Scudera)
“In fact, only 39 percent of the U.S. population is eligible to donate blood. As a result, blood centers across the nation struggle to provide adequate blood supplies”. (Explaining). By removing this ban, the blood supply will be adequately filled, and the risks of contracting HIV, however small they are, become irrelevant. Would someone rather contract HIV or have their lives saved? The FDA fails to realize the need for change, and without this comprehension, they are killing many Americans.
A lifetime blacklisting costs exponentially more lives than it saves due to the FDA. Apparently exsanguination and taboccacide are more desirable than a treatable infection “with a post-diagnosis survival for those infected sexually...about equal to that of the general population” This homophobic policy needs to change and it needs to change momentarily due to the inconsistent, discriminatory , scientifically antique, and mortal policies. A temporary ban, of just a single year, is a universally beneficiary solution to this policidic eradication of modern society by the permanent blacklisting of healthy Americans.


Here is the link for my paper
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14vPiqNSsMOS9efEknE9RaUcQ_iEukgdY5NGQG-z29bI/

[Babs]

I think it's a bit of both, mostly discrimination though. Literally all they have to do is test for HIV beforehand instead of singling out an entire group of people and telling them they can't donate. There are a shit-ton of people who need blood transfusions and cutting out that many people is counterproductive. While gay men are more likely to get HIV, straight people can have it too and you know, every other blood disease known to existence...

[xXoblivionXx]

I think it's discrimination, healthy blood is healthy blood, period.

[TapDancer]

it has been conclusively established that MSM (men who have sex with men) have far higher rates of HIV infection than heterosexuals in the US. saying "UGH well ANYONE can have HIV bigot!!1!1!" is, to say the least, glib, and misses the point.

it's actually pretty funny the extent to which people downplay these facts because the facts are bigoted or something. I would think the desire to keep as many people as possible from being infected by HIV would take precedence over fear of being seen as a bigot, but then again millennials aren't known for using their porn- and drug addled brains all that often.

Actually, I am going to have to request some sort of formal and recent sources to back this up. In the 70s, MSM might have been forbidden to donate blood. Discriminatory as it might have been, statistically, yes they were higher risk, and I accept this as grounds enough to justify the rule. We are smarter now, however. Every blood donation is tested for HIV/AIDS, even if the donatee has declared themselves HIV negative.

Considering all blood donations are now tested, regardless of an old statistic which probably is not true in this day and age, the statistics are irrelevant now that we have developed effective tests. But alas, I will withdraw or amend my statement if you can provide the evidence and recent statistics that MSM have more risk of contracting HIV than heterosexual men (and to keep the playing field level, these statistics should specify if protection is used, because regardless of sexuality, donation of blood while having unprotected sex is irresponsible).

[Vlerchan]

Actually, I am going to have to request some sort of formal and recent sources to back this up.
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/ew/v08n11/040311_NethHIV.gif
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/images/HIV-Infections-Transmission-2009.jpg

I can't seem to find statistics which specify whether one has a unprotected sex or not, unfortunately. Here's an interesting statistic about homsexuals in general, though:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/11/28/health/28HIV-graphic/28HIV-graphic-superJumbo.jpg

---

Regardless, with the advancements made in testing, I'm still unsure why the above actually matters all that much.

[dirtyboxer55]

I think that until the research is conclusive that it should be the organization in charge of the blood drive's decision

[TapDancer]

image (http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/ew/v08n11/040311_NethHIV.gif)
image (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/images/HIV-Infections-Transmission-2009.jpg)

I can't seem to find statistics which specify whether one has a unprotected sex or not, unfortunately. Here's an interesting statistic about homsexuals in general, though:

image (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/11/28/health/28HIV-graphic/28HIV-graphic-superJumbo.jpg)

---

Regardless, with the advancements made in testing, I'm still unsure why the above actually matters all that much.

Thanks.

Given these recent statistics, I understand the possible reasoning behind this ban, however with testing as they are in this day and age, the ban is not necessary. In Australia at least, every donation is tested for many infectious diseases including HIV/AIDS. I understand that not all countries test every donation, which is also wrong, but that is another debate.

Basically, I believe the ban is not justified considering the testing methods available. Especially when often there can be a shortage of blood and eliminating the one group of people who are highest risk still does not account for all other people (whom with unsafe practices are at risk of HIV/AIDS).

[Gigablue]

Thanks.

Given these recent statistics, I understand the possible reasoning behind this ban, however with testing as they are in this day and age, the ban is not necessary. In Australia at least, every donation is tested for many infectious diseases including HIV/AIDS. I understand that not all countries test every donation, which is also wrong, but that is another debate.

Basically, I believe the ban is not justified considering the testing methods available. Especially when often there can be a shortage of blood and eliminating the one group of people who are highest risk still does not account for all other people (whom with unsafe practices are at risk of HIV/AIDS).

You act as though testing is perfect. All tests have some level of false negatives, and those are what we have to worry about. Until we have a perfect test, which is not going to be anytime soon, there will always be a chance of a false negative. The higher the prevalence of HIV in a given group, the higher the risk.

Also, gay men are not by any means the only high risk group banned from donating. You can be deferred either temporarily or permanently for many things, such as IV drug use, spending time in prison, getting a tattoo or piercing, living in certain parts of Africa, having lived in Europe in the 1980s, having lived in a malaria zone, having had a dura mater transplant, etc., in addition to being a man who has had sex with men. There ane many different reasons for which you can be deferred, all of them are because the aforementioned groups are at a higher risk of having different blood borne illnesses. I'm not saying all of the bans are justified, but many are.

I still don't know exactly where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, I want as much equality as possible, but on the other, MSM are at a very elevated risk of HIV. I don't think it is completely unreasonable to ban people who belong to a high risk group. I think having a lifetime ban for MSM is unreasonable, but a shorter deferral, like one year or six months, can be justified. We would need better data to be able to accurately weigh the risks and benefits of it.

[Vlerchan]

You act as though testing is perfect. All tests have some level of false negatives, and those are what we have to worry about.
I suppose the easiest way to by-pass this is just to test the blood more than once (say, three times)?

You'd be working with an infinitesimal chance of error then (right?).

[Gigablue]

I suppose the easiest way to by-pass this is just to test the blood more than once (say, three times)?

You'd be working with an infinitesimal chance of error then (right?).

That would work for some diseases, including HIV, but not others for which other groups are banned. If that were the case, it would be possible to life the ban on MSM and other high risk HIV groups. However, it would not be cost effective. While HIV testing has come down in price, testing still costs money. It isn't worth tripling the cost of testing only to allow a few relatively small minorities to be able to donate. It's money that could be better spent on other things.

[Apollo.]

I don't think its discrimination as such, maybe a bit of an outdated rule, however whatever it is I don't see why anybody that is gay should give a fuck. I mean its not like giving blood is a huge privilege. Its nice to help yes but if they don't want it then fuck them. I wouldn't be begging someone to take my blood.

[TapDancer]

You act as though testing is perfect. All tests have some level of false negatives, and those are what we have to worry about. Until we have a perfect test, which is not going to be anytime soon, there will always be a chance of a false negative. The higher the prevalence of HIV in a given group, the higher the risk.

Also, gay men are not by any means the only high risk group banned from donating. You can be deferred either temporarily or permanently for many things, such as IV drug use, spending time in prison, getting a tattoo or piercing, living in certain parts of Africa, having lived in Europe in the 1980s, having lived in a malaria zone, having had a dura mater transplant, etc., in addition to being a man who has had sex with men. There ane many different reasons for which you can be deferred, all of them are because the aforementioned groups are at a higher risk of having different blood borne illnesses. I'm not saying all of the bans are justified, but many are.

I still don't know exactly where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, I want as much equality as possible, but on the other, MSM are at a very elevated risk of HIV. I don't think it is completely unreasonable to ban people who belong to a high risk group. I think having a lifetime ban for MSM is unreasonable, but a shorter deferral, like one year or six months, can be justified. We would need better data to be able to accurately weigh the risks and benefits of it.

There will always be human error, that will never change. However, the amount of lives that could be saved by allowing MSM to donate blood could outweigh that risk. I am not saying it is all that much extra people, but I live in an area where blood shortages are common and its awful when hospitals have to pick and choose who needs it most.

Alternatively, it is my understanding that those who believe they are at significant risk of HIV and go get tested, usually test themselves twice in case they get a false positive/negative. Shouldn't we be doing that anyway?