Donating Blood (merged)

I don't get this, they must test all the blood anyway, because not everyone would tell the truth and their might be poeple with hiv who might not know about it
S

 

That is one of the inconsistiencies of the policy. There is, however, a three month period over which people may be infected with HIV, but will not test positive because tests look for antibodies in the blood which take time to be produced. This would seem to suggest that their policy, by removing the most high risk groups, is aimed at minimising the risk factor whereby something may slip by undetected. Mistakes do happen, and they're covering their backs....

 

I thought the same things about it... I also found out that if you are a gay man whos in a stable relationship and check "yes" to that question.... well, you will still get to talk to the screening person (at least where I give blood) and it's not a definate NO.. but I agree it's whacked out in many ways.

And the female that has had sex with a man that has had sex with another man is a seven year thing but still messed up. If you were tested and negative I don't see the point.

 

I still give blood.

However, my boyfriend does not for this reason.

 

Yeah, if you know you are clean you can lie. It's not the people needing blood that make the rules but I understand people not wanting to lie because it could be ... well... upsetting...

 

I couldn't agree with you more Peace.
At the end of the day, they made such a cock-up with blood transfusions in the 70s/80s resulting in many people contracting the HIV/AIDS virus. It is for people's safety.

 

I understand it is a matter of public safety and I know they aren't doing it because they hate gay people. It just bothered me a tad.

Sure homosexual men are a high risk group but so are those that are promiscuous and I didn't see any provision regarding that in the papers I filled out.

I agree that there are more important issues to worry about but I just bothered me that I wouldn't be allowed to donate blood because of me having sex with a man even if I had used protection which would signifigantly decrease the risk.

 

Yes, but it does not take the risk away 100%. HIV can take up to 6 months just to be noticed. The whole point of blood donation is so that it can be used immediately, if necessary. Which, if you have a risk of being HIV positive, is not practical and very dangerous.

 

Yeah I'd heard about that. Probably a wise precaution given the widespread panic over the BSE crisis. As it turns out, it was a much smaller issue than previously thought....

 

I'm in that same boat, I was stationed in England from 84-88 and can't give blood because of BSE, it has been 19 years and there is nothing wrong with me.

I was told I can't donate marrow because I'm gay.

 

Personally, I'd just lie. I know that's really wrong and just allows discrimination to continue, but they REALLY need the blood.

Does anyone wonder if AIDS is a bit of an excuse, and that maybe it's just some residual fear that homosexuality might be contagious?

Because I don't.

 

That is not the issue and you should know that. At the end of the day, it's people's lives and safety vs your pride.

Get over it.

 

Suppose you know you don't have any blood diseases? Like you said, it's people's lives, surely they need as much blood as they can get.

 

I understand what you're saying dude, but I also have to agree with the restrictions. They're there for a reason at the end of the day. You know that our government isn't homophobic...if they were, the gay marriage bill and gay rights etc wouldn't even exist.

It's like if you spend some time in Africa or whatever... you won't be able to give blood due to Malaria, Scarlet Fever etc etc

Prevention is better than cure.

 

Perhaps I'm drifting a bit off topic, but why are gays statistically known to spread STDs more than straight people? To my knowledge there is no technical reason for it. If you have unprotected sex with someone with a disease then you will get it regardless of your sexual orientation.

My theory is that most sex education does not concern anal sex. To be honest, when I was younger I had no idea that STDs could be spread through anal sex. Fortunately I was a curious lad and I learned much about sex on my own through reading various books and through the internet. I quickly learned that anal sex was not a safe alternative. I guess this brings me to the thread titled "Discrimination in a school near here." I think it is important for homosexuality to be talked about in school. Not only is it good to inform our children about it and make them comfortable with it so they don't grow up as biggots but it will also teach those that are gay (and those that aren't) that anal sex does not make them immune to STDs.

I don't know but I think that if people are properly informed about these things at a young age there will be a lot less disease being spread through sex. Maybe one day homosexuals won't be seen as disease-infested members of society.


I can definitely see why they are doing it and though I don't like it I can live with it. Maybe one day though statistics will balance out and things will change.

 

True up to a point, however, as Africa shows, AIDS is far from just a gay plague. And while I know our government isn't homophobic, it's been born into a country that has been, and many of the old prejudices still exist. The idea that someone is likely to have AIDS just because they're an active homosexual is just as silly as the idea that someone won't have it just because they're heterosexual and haven't had sex in Africa.

 

Actually that's wrong, anal sex does carry an empirically observed higher risk of spreading STDs. It's because the method of transmission is from semen coming into direct contact with blood due to the high concentration of capilliaries in the anus. This, of course, goes for heterosexuals participating in anal sex too. It's not just a gay issue, though homosexual males are proportionately more affected by it. It is also roughly four times more likely that a woman will contract HIV through heterosexual intercourse than a man. Alas, these are the facts....

 

Thats rubbish! Blood is tested before it is transfused into someone. Why should blood from a gay person, that is disease free still not be able to be used!? Thats bullshit quite honestly. If the blood is fine, why should they not use it?

 

I've explained my point quite clearly already. It is justified internally as a precautionary measure given that HIV is not detectable for several months after initial infection. Do you really believe that health services are inherently homophobic and that they would actively wish to act on their prejudices to discriminate against homosexual males? Don't get angry with me for presenting a logical argument. Unless you think I'm homophobic too?