 |
|
|
|
| Gay People Should Be Able To Donate Blood. |
| I don't see why not. A straight football stud who puts it about whenever he can donate blood but two guys in a committed relationship can't. They say that gays can't donate because of a higher HIV risk but straight women now have the highest levels of HIV transmission around the world. Should we ban them from donating? It's not like the blood isn't screened before hand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, as long as they're clean. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well of course. I didn't realise that this wasn't the case. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well why not? 1/4 girls from 12 years old to like... 19 have STD's. So... HIV isn't the only thing
I'd afraid of. Are gays the only people with HIV etc? Nah...
You do get blood screened anyways. Or you at least should. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I didnt know there was some discrimination against gay people giving blood!?
I mean i know thats where AIDS is developed most of the time, but thats a bit over the top isnt it?
Its not fair at all! I didnt no there was something against them giving blood.
Even if they do give blood and there is something wrong with it, the blood is tested and filtered so
the chances of whatever problem being passed on is slim anyway. This applys to eveyone.
I am truly shocked at that. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Of course. All blood should be screened for disease anyway regardless of who donated it. And if
free of disease then the only other thing that matters is matching the right blood types. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The rules were made when blood screening was unreliable (and it isn't homophobic to acknowledge that
the gay community has a massively higher HIV rate than the hetro community). This is no longer the
case, so it is no longer necessary to limit our blood supply. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I must admit that I am slightly torn on this. I do not believe it is sensible to exclude gay men
from donating blood and I think the restriction was put in place too long ago to be accurate today,
however, I do not believe that the CDC chose to discriminate when it upheld the original 1983 rule
that men who have had a same sex partner at any time after 1977 could not donate blood. I don't
think it is a human right's issue, but I do think it is foolish and paranoid. I did go to the
American Red Cross page and searched further to find out why gay men are turned away when they go to
donate blood. It appears that the CDC upheld this restriction in 1997, but that there is currently
discussion of revising the restriction. There is a window between infection and when the virus can
be detected on a test. To me, the obvious solution would be to screen gay men the same way they
screen anyone else and determine the risk on an individual basis. I believe that the CDC acted on
what was believed to be in the best interest of everyone who recieves blood and, given that this
decision was made in 1997, there is room for much revising. We need blood donors. Pheresis, where
certain componants of the blood can be separated and takes longer than standard donation would
benefit by allowing gay men to give blood. I also want to add that lesbians are permitted to donate
blood. That being the case, I am less convinced that the CDC made the decision in 1997 to uphold
the 1983 restrictions based on homophobia or in a discriminatory manner. My personal opinion is
that anyone who is willing to donate blood should be screened and a gay man in a longterm
relationship is no more likely to be HIV positive than a straight man in a longterm relationship.
To be honest, I don't see how the Blood Bank can insure that people are being truthful with them.
Men and women who engage in affairs are putting themselves at risk and putting their partner
unknowingly at risk. How then can a person in a serious relationship or one who is married be 100%
certain that they have not been exposed to any STD? Most of us trust our spouses or partners. If
one strays and does not either confess or get caught, it seems to me that, if there is no better way
to test blood for infections that have a long incubation period, we are all at risk of infection.
Since recieving blood is very safe and it is highly unlikely to become infected with HIV through a
blood transfusion at this time, there should be no reason to exclude gay men. Sorry that I'm a
little back and forth on this. I can see both sides, but I do agree that gay men who are not
engaging in sex with multiple partners (same thing for straight men), there is little need to
exclude them. Giving blood is not such a fun and exciting thing to do that huge numbers of people
are going to lie about their sexual activity just so they are permitted to donate. If they really
want a glass or OJ, I bet they can just go through the McD's drive thru and order one instead of
being poked and waiting for the donation to be completed. : ) |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
06 Jul 2009 13:20
Sign In
