Gay Men Still Banned From Donating Blood...

[BVS]

WASHINGTON - Gay men remain banned for life from donating blood, the government said Wednesday, leaving in place — for now — a 1983 prohibition meant to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18827137/

 

[redkat]

I'm always shocked anyone qualifies. The list of exclusions is so long.

Here is the section related to AIDS specifically
HIV, AIDS
You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.

You are at risk for getting infected if you:

* have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
* are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
* have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
* have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
* received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia
* were born in, or lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria, since 1977.
* since 1977, received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of these countries, or
* had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of these countries. Learn more about HIV Group O, and the specific African countries where it is found.

 

[onebloodonelife]

I just found out about this a few weeks ago, and it still shocks me. All donated blood goes through HIV testing anyway. This is blatant discrimination.

 

[coemgen]

^ and, on top of it all there's a shortage of donors in many parts, too. It's sad on many levels.

 

[OceanGirl]

All guidelines are put in place for the safety of both the donor and/or the recipient. This has nothing to do with "gay rights" and everything to do with the safety of recipients. I would much prefer to exclude someone who has taken part in a high risk activity than to risk the health of recipients so that certain people don't feel "discriminated" against.

Gay men aren't the only ones who are banned from giving blood. Anyone who has lived in the UK between 1980-96 or who has received blood transfusions in the UK is banned. Anyone who has had a tattoo, received a blood transfusion or had a body piercing is banned for 12 months. Anyone who has had sex with someone who they think could be high risk is also banned for 12 months. The list goes on. Should every one of those people jump up and down and whinge about "discrimination"?

If people choose to take part in the activities listed in the high risk group, then that's up to them - but it isn't fair to expose blood recipients to the potential risks, just so that these people don't feel discriminated against.

I'm all for banning anyone who could be a potential risk.

All donated blood goes through HIV testing anyway. This is blatant discrimination.

Yes, but there is also a window period where an HIV infection will not show up in tests.

^ and, on top of it all there's a shortage of donors in many parts, too. It's sad on many levels

And it would be even sadder if they started giving people blood that could be infected with HIV or any other diseases just so that gay men (or anyone else in the high risk group) didn't feel discriminated against.

 

[CTU2fan]

Well, it helps you avoid that awkward moment when the fundamentalist lies bleeding out in the ER screaming "don't give me the GAY blood!!111!!one!1".

 

[Liesje]

I was banned from giving blood for three years, but I'm not a man or gay.

 

[verte76]

I'm banned from giving blood because I've had hepatitis B. I don't see why they just can't test the blood. It's hard enough to get blood without discriminating against gays who are healthy and are willing to give.

 

[onebloodonelife]

Gay men aren't the only ones who are banned from giving blood. Anyone who has lived in the UK between 1980-96 or who has received blood transfusions in the UK is banned.

This is because of exposure to mad cow disease, which has no blood test to diagnose it at this time.

Anyone who has had sex with someone who they think could be high risk is also banned for 12 months. The list goes on. Should every one of those people jump up and down and whinge about "discrimination"?

And, how many of the people who have had "high risk" sex go into donate blood and lie about their activities?

Yes, but there is also a window period where an HIV infection will not show up in tests.

Fine, then tell the people who would like to donate to abstain from sexual contact and come back after the period of time has passed. If someone is truly interested in donating, they will do what it takes to donate.

I'm assuming this window also applies to straight people? So, hypothetically, there could also be HIV positive blood from straight people in the supply.


There is a shortage of donors, and banning an entire group of people certainly doesn't help. For the record, I'm currently banned from donating due to medications that I have to take.

 

[BVS]

Honestly, these restrictions are ridiculous.

12 months for a tatoo? There's no medical reason for 12 months.

And how does accepting money make the sex any riskier than a one night stand with someone from a bar?

There is no medical reason for gay men to be discriminated against.

Safe sex is safe sex and risky sex is risky sex, that's it.

And despite a "window", all blood should be tested the same, for anyone can lie.

It's purely discrimination, period...

 

[Serena Vox]

This is blatant discrimination.

Agreed.
Being gay doesn't make a man automatically HIV positive. HIV isn't discriminate at all and straight people have it as well.

 

[Irvine511]

 

[JanuaryStar]

Seriously, the discrimination... Whatever makes people sure enough to set up these stereotypes? It makes me mad

 

[Galeongirl]

Some of the people making these laws and statements should go get some facts, or be forced to live in Holland for a year... I bet that would change their narrow minded predjudices!