Banning men who have had sex with men from donating blood

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Almost every country in the world bans men who have had sex with men (MSM) from donating blood even if it only happened once. These bans range from one year to a lifetime. This dates back to the 1980s when HIV was discovered and the epidemic began. Since a lot of the cases of HIV and AIDS were in gay/bisexual men and MSM such persons were banned from donating blood. The reason why MSM are at such a high risk of having is because they often have anal sex which is risky because the anus is prone to tearing and bleeding during sex, it has a large amount of white blood cells which have immunity functions, and it absorbs fluid.

However, such blood donation bans are considered to be discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation. As a matter of fact low-risk MSM are banned from giving blood while some straight people who engage in risky sex practices are allowed to donate blood.

Concerning the ban it is largely due to anal sex being the most risky from of sexually transmitting HIV, especially for the receptive partner. It seems to me that the ban would make more sense and be non-discriminatory if anyone who has had anal sex regardless of gender. Do you agree?

[Jess]

I know this is about men but what about lesbians? um stupid question...

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I know this is about men but what about lesbians? um stupid question...

Lesbians and women who have sex with women are not at an especially high risk of HIV at least when it comes to sexual transmission of HIV.

[Ali_Cat]

Almost every country in the world bans men who have had sex with men (MSM) from donating blood even if it only happened once. These bans range from one year to a lifetime. This dates back to the 1980s when HIV was discovered and the epidemic began. Since a lot of the cases of HIV and AIDS were in gay/bisexual men and MSM such persons were banned from donating blood. The reason why MSM are at such a high risk of having is because they often have anal sex which is risky because the anus is prone to tearing and bleeding during sex, it has a large amount of white blood cells which have immunity functions, and it absorbs fluid.

However, such blood donation bans are considered to be discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation. As a matter of fact low-risk MSM are banned from giving blood while some straight people who engage in risky sex practices are allowed to donate blood.

Concerning the ban it is largely due to anal sex being the most risky from of sexually transmitting HIV, especially for the receptive partner. It seems to me that the ban would make more sense and be non-discriminatory if anyone who has had anal sex regardless of gender. Do you agree?

I`ve donated blood twice. I`ve never been asked for my sexual orientation. Nor has my gay male friend. Plus, each time I`ve been pricked on the finger and have had my blood tested.(which is a pretty common.) It is a very outdated ban, and most 'blood drives' could less give a damn. It`s not like they have gaydar, seeking out all the gays and pointing thier fingers back towards the door. Plus, even after donating blood, your blood is tested. After all, there are plenty of people who donate, who do not know that they have a STI. If its bad, oh well, they throw it out.
The 'ban' is on its way to being abolished. Who cares.

[gingeylover14]

i think its rediculous and it they r so concerned 4 hpv/aids they should test 4 it be4 takin a blood donation

[BackOnTime]

The blood is tested anyway, isn't it? A ban just seems useless...

[Quahog]

Yeah I don't think it's fair. It been like that for quite some time. They won't allow gay men to donate blood. I think it's so stupid and unfair.

[deadpie]

Oh, I need more blood or I'm going to die!
Well, the only type we have is from a homosexual.
Well fuck that, I'd rather die!


People are fucking dumb, end story.

[Jess]

Okay, well I don't think there should be a ban on this. Not fair to gays. They should be allowed...though I do understand the risk, it's still unfair...so yeah :S

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I`ve donated blood twice. I`ve never been asked for my sexual orientation. Nor has my gay male friend. Plus, each time I`ve been pricked on the finger and have had my blood tested.(which is a pretty common.) It is a very outdated ban, and most 'blood drives' could less give a damn. It`s not like they have gaydar, seeking out all the gays and pointing thier fingers back towards the door. Plus, even after donating blood, your blood is tested. After all, there are plenty of people who donate, who do not know that they have a STI. If its bad, oh well, they throw it out.
The 'ban' is on its way to being abolished. Who cares.

Actually, the ban is not based on sexual orientation. They would only ask you if your are male and have had sex with another male. A straight man who had sex with a man only once to see what it was like would be banned Lots of blood drives do care and they would risk getting in trouble if they allow men who have had sex to donate. The ban is in place because of the fear of false negatives since HIV can't be detected until a certain amount of time after exposure and men who have sex with men are disproportionately affected by HIV. However, there are tests that are making it easier to detect HIV, and there is a strong possibility of the ban being reversed in the near future.

You can learn more here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy

[jet7up]

Banning the gays from donating blood seems to me Okay.
I do not want to get an VHI and AIDS disease because of their blood
If they want to have sex man-man , they can do this , no problem with that, but donating blood is a very high risk ..

[Charleigh]

WTF. Homosexual men, should be allowed to donate blood. So fucking what they have sex with the same gender, whats it got to do with anyone else, its their fucking sex life lol. Gay people are not the only ones with HIV, straight people get it too from sleeping around and shit. Why do people have to be so ignorant to peoples sexuality. Some people are fucking stupid lol.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Banning the gays from donating blood seems to me Okay.
I do not want to get an VHI and AIDS disease because of their blood
If they want to have sex man-man , they can do this , no problem with that, but donating blood is a very high risk ..

Stop stereotyping for christ fucking sake. Just because they are gay, doesnt mean you are automatically going to get those diseases. First off you need to get HIV before you get aids, second saying that they can have sex, but I dont want their blood is still being homophobic, and no its not high risk...They test the fucking blood first...

This question disgusts me, its stereotypical, and discriminatory. What are you afraid of? That the tissue that is known as blood, is different amoung people? I would be willing to say, that gay people probably give just as much if not more blood to hospitals, then straight republicans and americans. Because doing something that takes time, and stuff away from a normal American is too hard. You wouldnt know that though, your french

[ShatteredWings]

If they want to do this, and do it legitimately, myself and a few friends figured it out


You can't donate blood if you've had unprotected sex with a new partner in the past 3 months.

That covers EVERYONE, and all chances of undetected HIV.
Maybe a note to make sure sex includes all forms

[Cosmic]

The important thing to recognize is that it's because of the risk of HIV infection, NOT because they're homosexual. It's very easy to get sensationalist with these sorts of policies, and admittedly it's very sensitive territory... but it should also be recognized that it would be an additional cost on the health services if they are having to put more attention into these tests, and filtering accordingly.

It's by no means an ideal situation, and I do wish that gay people could donate, because chances are most of them have perfectly good blood which would prove hugely useful... but I don't think it's fair to be calling them unfair for their decision. There is method to the madness, though whether there is a better solution or not is not my place to say - I am not that well read on blood-testing procedures.

[ShatteredWings]

But it is unfair, because yes there is a higher risk but our testing for HIV is much more accurate, and 3 months is enough for it to show up. But ANYONE can get HIV, mostly straight women (penetrated = contract STDs easier) and gay men, yes. But If they want to pull 'safty of the supply', apply the same realistic standard to everyone

[Rutherford The Brave]

The important thing to recognize is that it's because of the risk of HIV infection, NOT because they're homosexual. It's very easy to get sensationalist with these sorts of policies, and admittedly it's very sensitive territory... but it should also be recognized that it would be an additional cost on the health services if they are having to put more attention into these tests, and filtering accordingly.

It's by no means an ideal situation, and I do wish that gay people could donate, because chances are most of them have perfectly good blood which would prove hugely useful... but I don't think it's fair to be calling them unfair for their decision. There is method to the madness, though whether there is a better solution or not is not my place to say - I am not that well read on blood-testing procedures.

Read the damn title. It is because of the fact that they are homosexual. Because HIV is supposedly a gay only disease to alot of people... Its obvious since alot of you, even subconsciously are stereotyping a group of people. You cant tell me that it isnt the truth. It is about them being gay, stop trying to change that fact.

[Cosmic]

Read the damn title. It is because of the fact that they are homosexual. Because HIV is supposedly a gay only disease to alot of people... Its obvious since alot of you, even subconsciously are stereotyping a group of people. You cant tell me that it isnt the truth. It is about them being gay, stop trying to change that fact.

With all due respect, unless you can substantiate (rather than refute denial) any of those claims about our intentions and biases (subconscious or not), I would strongly advise you to steer clear of that territory, lest you not only offend people, but also find yourself out of your depth in a debate where your position is merely presumptuous.

In answer to the other points made, it's clear that actually, the argument rests on very easily found quantitative data. It is merely science, and it is, as I said before, presumptuous to assume that it is BECAUSE they're gay, and not because they're at higher risk, that they are excluded.

As I said, I by no means advocate their position. I don't know enough about it to do so. I am merely suggesting that it would be unwarranted to call "homophobic" against a particularly scientific circumstance.

Based on what I know, though, I would be so bold as to agree that homosexual men do not deserve to be excluded, and the additional costs for whatever testing they may require should be welcomed in return for the huge influx of blood they would receive. I also think it's important at a social level in terms of making people feel valued, and not denying charity where charity is offered.

[ShatteredWings]

It's OUTDATED science is the problem.

at the time that rule was instated we knew less about hiv. now we understand it and now its not just a disease found in the gay male community..
but the red cross would rather take blood from a woman who's had sex with 5 men in the past week and uses IV drugs than a man who's been with his partner for the past 2 years.

[Rutherford The Brave]

With all due respect, unless you can substantiate (rather than refute denial) any of those claims about our intentions and biases (subconscious or not), I would strongly advise you to steer clear of that territory, lest you not only offend people, but also find yourself out of your depth in a debate where your position is merely presumptuous.

In answer to the other points made, it's clear that actually, the argument rests on very easily found quantitative data. It is merely science, and it is, as I said before, presumptuous to assume that it is BECAUSE they're gay, and not because they're at higher risk, that they are excluded.

As I said, I by no means advocate their position. I don't know enough about it to do so. I am merely suggesting that it would be unwarranted to call "homophobic" against a particularly scientific circumstance.

Based on what I know, though, I would be so bold as to agree that homosexual men do not deserve to be excluded, and the additional costs for whatever testing they may require should be welcomed in return for the huge influx of blood they would receive. I also think it's important a social level in terms of making people feel valued, and not denying charity where charity is offered.

Im not calling anyone homophobic against a circumstance, Im calling people homophobic against their actions. Its discriminatory and once again stereotypical, to say that Gay men cannot donate blood, if they have had sex with other men because not all gay men, have HIV or even will be subjected to that.... In fact straight people are just as likely to catch HIV. Its true, since its pretty much true that once you sleep with someone will being unprotected, your sleeping with every other person that that person has slept with. That is a scientific circumstance, not the gibberish you spat back at me.

[Cosmic]

Im not calling anyone homophobic against a circumstance, Im calling people homophobic against their actions. Its discriminatory and once again stereotypical, to say that Gay men cannot donate blood, if they have had sex with other men because not all gay men, have HIV or even will be subjected to that.... In fact straight people are just as likely to catch HIV. Its true, since its pretty much true that once you sleep with someone will being unprotected, your sleeping with every other person that that person has slept with. That is a scientific circumstance, not the gibberish you spat back at me.

Like I said, I am not particularly well read on this, and I'm more than happy to agree that action should be taken to make this an inclusive, rather than exclusive form of charity (as I outlined above). To clarify, the scientific circumstance I was referring to was the system around donation of blood - they are, surely, interested in the scientific reasons (outdated or not) for denying what is probably perfectly good blood, right? I don't think you can accuse them of subjectivity in the way you are lest you suggest that the systems surrounding blood donation are in fact less science and more bias, which I think would require more substantive evidence to qualify, beyond the possible implications of their policies.

In terms of what you said, I was more referring to these:

Its obvious since alot of you, even subconsciously are stereotyping a group of people.

Prove it.

You cant tell me that it isnt the truth.

I can, actually. That's what a debate is all about - putting evidence and argumentation against evidence and argumentation. Welcome to The Ramblings of the Wise!

It is about them being gay

Again, prove it... And don't merely infer it.

Oh, and I would kindly ask that you show me enough respect not to refer to my posts as "gibberish". If you can't be civil enough to debate at least somewhat politely, you probably shouldn't be posting here at all.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Like I said, I am not particularly well read on this, and I'm more than happy to agree that action should be taken to make this an inclusive, rather than exclusive form of charity (as I outlined above). To clarify, the scientific circumstance I was referring to was the system around donation of blood - they are, surely, interested in the scientific reasons (outdated or not) for denying what is probably perfectly good blood, right? I don't think you can accuse them of subjectivity in the way you are lest you suggest that the systems surrounding blood donation are in fact less science and more bias, which I think would require more substantive evidence to qualify, beyond the possible implications of their policies.

In terms of what you said, I was more referring to these:



Prove it.



I can, actually. That's what a debate is all about - putting evidence and argumentation against evidence and argumentation. Welcome to The Ramblings of the Wise!



Again, prove it... And don't merely infer it.

Oh, and I would kindly ask that you show me enough respect not to refer to my posts as "gibberish". If you can't be civil enough to debate at least somewhat politely, you probably shouldn't be posting here at all.

1. You look at a black person what do you see? You see that hes a black person, dont deny it. Theres the proof.

2. No you can tell me what you think is right, doesnt mean its the truth.

3. You clearly stated that you think that gay men are at high risk for having/receiving aids, I pointed out that their is no difference, between the levels of HIV in the gay population and the straight population.

4. No fuck no. I'll post where ever the hell I want. You dont get respect until you earn it.

[Cosmic]

1. You look at a black person what do you see? You see that hes a black person, dont deny it. Theres the proof.

2. No you can tell me what you think is right, doesnt mean its the truth.

3. You clearly stated that you think that gay men are at high risk for having/receiving aids, I pointed out that their is no difference, between the levels of HIV in the gay population and the straight population.

4. No fuck no. I'll post where ever the hell I want. You dont get respect until you earn it.

1. I look at a black person and see a person... how can you sit there, having never spoken to me before, and seriously try and tell me what I see? I can't take you seriously so long as you make such baseless comments.

2. Yet, you can tell others what the truth is? My my, what a gift you have! You walked into this debate with your mind closed - why are you here at all?

3. No, I clearly stated that that's the reason THEY have given. It would seem that the information they rest their justification on is outdated, and that's something that should be addressed. But you can't declare homophobia from that. You can suggest it as a possibility, of course - but it will never go beyond that unless you can substantiate it (which you seem to be having trouble doing).

4. What a wonderful attitude you have! Respect should be a mutual thing between humans, because we're certainly not here to be rude to each other. Being treated well is nice, it's a good feeling and one that makes people feel valued. Why are you so opposed to something so infinitely positive?

[Rutherford The Brave]

1. I look at a black person and see a person... how can you sit there, having never spoken to me before, and seriously try and tell me what I see? I can't take you seriously so long as you make such baseless comments.

2. Yet, you can tell others what the truth is? My my, what a gift you have! You walked into this debate with your mind closed - why are you here at all?

3. No, I clearly stated that that's the reason THEY have given. It would seem that the information they rest their justification on is outdated, and that's something that should be addressed. But you can't declare homophobia from that. You can suggest it as a possibility, of course - but it will never go beyond that unless you can substantiate it (which you seem to be having trouble doing).

4. What a wonderful attitude you have! Respect should be a mutual thing between humans, because we're certainly not here to be rude to each other. Being treated well is nice, it's a good feeling and one that makes people feel valued. Why are you so opposed to something so infinitely positive?

You cant honestly say that the action of looking at someones skin color isnt doing it subconsciously. I've done a pretty good job stating the obvious. Its stupid to say that they cant do anything off of outdated ideas, and beliefs. I simply stated how I felt, I dont know the truth of why people do anything. All I know is it seems pretty obvious that you just want to point out the fact that they are high risk people. Which I really want to prove to you, that it isnt true, everyone is high risk because we dont know. You just want me to respect you, and I wont. I read what you said thats respectful, i just choose to speak to you in the manner in which I did. Its nothing against you, its been a rough few days.

[Limelight788]

Honestly, banning a gay who had sex with a gay is pretty hypocritical, since a man who has sex with a woman and vice versa can still donate blood without question, yet gays can't if they had sex with the same gender. Yes anal sex is the most dangerous form of sex, but it isn't mutually exclusive to gays either. Straight mens and womens can also do this as well, just that gays tend to do this a lot more frequently. If people are so concerned about bad blood, they should force everyone to go three months without sex after they last had one to ensure safety.

[Cosmic]

You cant honestly say that the action of looking at someones skin color isnt doing it subconsciously. I've done a pretty good job stating the obvious.

Why can't I honestly say that? You assume that prejudice has been built into me, but you've no idea of my socialisation.

Its stupid to say that they cant do anything off of outdated ideas, and beliefs. I simply stated how I felt, I dont know the truth of why people do anything. All I know is it seems pretty obvious that you just want to point out the fact that they are high risk people. Which I really want to prove to you, that it isnt true, everyone is high risk because we dont know.

I'm a little confused on your position now... I don't think it's stupid to suggest that they shouldn't base their practice off of outdated information, and I would have thought, given your stance thus far, you would agree - after all, to base a policy off of outdated information is to effectively base it off of nothing (intentionally or not) and that is counter-productive with regards to social inclusion and your general stance on the treatment of gay men.



I have already stated, several times, that I am not particularly well read on this subject and reserve judgement with regards to whether homosexual people are indeed at higher risk. I based my initial argument off of their reasoning, which I presumed to be in-date. However that has been disputed, and thus I am more than happy to take a step back from that side of the debate.

You just want me to respect you, and I wont. I read what you said thats respectful, i just choose to speak to you in the manner in which I did. Its nothing against you, its been a rough few days.

Yes, I do want you to respect me, as I do you, and everyone else on this board. Reading what I say is indeed respectful, though it's also a matter of convenience if you want to partake in this debate (which you clearly do). You say you simply chose to speak to me in a certain manner, but how about taking a step back and thinking about how that might make me feel, or how that reflects on you when people see you being rude to someone. It is simply unnecessary, I have done nothing to warrant the way you have spoken to me.

I'm sorry it's been a rough few days for you, but I really don't think that's a valid reason for treating other people poorly. You are more than old enough to take responsibility for your own attitude, and not blame it on circumstance.

[Rutherford The Brave]

I as a person, find these things irrehensable. I have alot of LGBT friends, and I want them to enjoy the same rights that I do.

I'm not blaming the fact that its been rough on my actions. I take responsabilty, I'm not going to say Im sorry for swearing and being passionate. I'm just going to say I fucked up, because its true. We all get a little heated, and this is something that got under my skin. We are all humans, why cant we treat each other equally?

[Cosmic]

I as a person, find these things irrehensable. I have alot of LGBT friends, and I want them to enjoy the same rights that I do.


As do most people not driven by religious prejudices and other traditionalist dogma. That does not mean, however, that those that fail to uphold all of those rights are automatically prejudiced against that group of people. It could be (to mention but a few possibilities):

- Unintentional neglect (absent mindedness)
- Administrative difficulties in pushing through policy (woolly, but oh so possible)
- Based on evidence that we do not have access too, or have simply not seen.


I'm not blaming the fact that its been rough on my actions. I take responsabilty, I'm not going to say Im sorry for swearing and being passionate. I'm just going to say I fucked up, because its true. We all get a little heated, and this is something that got under my skin.

I appreciate the introspection, and thank you... but it is a shame that you are too proud to apologise.

We are all humans, why cant we treat each other equally?

It was you just arguing that it is okay to treat people badly until they earn respect... But I shan't push the point, I'm simply pleased that you don't seem to actually believe it.

[Severus Snape]

What is this, 1985? If you want to keep AIDs infected blood out of the blood banks you will have to ban everyone who has ever had sex, taken drugs, or been born from giving blood.

[jet7up]

saying that they can have sex, but I dont want their blood is still being homophobic, and no its not high risk...

This question disgusts me, its stereotypical, and discriminatory. What are you afraid of? That the tissue that is known as blood, is different amoung people? I would be willing to say, that gay people probably give just as much if not more blood to hospitals, then straight republicans and americans. Because doing something that takes time, and stuff away from a normal American is too hard. You wouldnt know that though, your french

I respect your choice of living, having homosexual relations, but you also have to respect my choice, because this is about MY LIFE, and i don't want to get sick because of that.
I have the right to say yes or not to receive their blood.
Having anal sexual relations is a very high risk to get a HIV virus, everybody knows that.
Please, understand that I am not against the homosexual, they can have sex together, no problem at all, but I shall NEVER accept their blood.
I don't care if the French or American red Cross will tell me that their blood have been tested ! I don't want to accept any risk of disease.
I do not care if somebody will tell me that my decision is "homophobique", this is MY RIGHT taking care of my health.

[Infidelitas]

Just dont tell em your gay, or that you have had sex with a man. Thats what im gonna do

[Infidelitas]

I respect your choice of living, having homosexual relations, but you also have to respect my choice, because this is about MY LIFE, and i don't want to get sick because of that.
I have the right to say yes or not to receive their blood.
Having anal sexual relations is a very high risk to get a HIV virus, everybody knows that.
Please, understand that I am not against the homosexual, they can have sex together, no problem at all, but I shall NEVER accept their blood.
I don't care if the French or American red Cross will tell me that their blood have been tested ! I don't want to accept any risk of disease.
I do not care if somebody will tell me that my decision is "homophobique", this is MY RIGHT taking care of my health.

No different from them banning straight men from giving blood, who cdidnt use a condom when having vaginal sex, is it?

[The Dark Lord]

Just dont tell em your gay, or that you have had sex with a man. Thats what im gonna do

That's the attitude which has resulted in many people getting AIDS from blood donations- failing to disclose medical information.

I respect your choice of living, having homosexual relations, but you also have to respect my choice, because this is about MY LIFE, and i don't want to get sick because of that.
I have the right to say yes or not to receive their blood.
Having anal sexual relations is a very high risk to get a HIV virus, everybody knows that.
Please, understand that I am not against the homosexual, they can have sex together, no problem at all, but I shall NEVER accept their blood.
I don't care if the French or American red Cross will tell me that their blood have been tested ! I don't want to accept any risk of disease.
I do not care if somebody will tell me that my decision is "homophobique", this is MY RIGHT taking care of my health.

Would you rather receive no blood than receive it from homosexuals

[Korashk]

It's not about being discriminatory. Its about eliminating the need to test blood from high-risk groups.