I didn't know that gay men were not allowed to give blood...

Gary Gary
...but this issue is being reviewed. I was just reading on XBIZ that a federal advisory committee has begun hearings to change this policy.
06/11/2010
  • Get 3 amazing toys for $60 only
  • Black Friday Cyber Monday 70% Clearance
  • Black Friday Cyber Monday 50% Clearance
  • Black Friday Cyber Monday 40% Clearance
  • Black Friday Cyber Monday 25% Clearance
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
All promotions
Jul!a Jul!a
Wow, I didn't know this either. Honestly, I'm a bit appalled. I hope this gets overturned.
06/11/2010
Sir Sir
Yeah, you didn't know that? It's a shame, thankfully it's now being reviewed. It's about time. You'd be surprised at the amount of things against homosexuality that are governmental...
06/11/2010
Jul!a Jul!a
I really didn't know. I'm sure I would be very surprised to even find out how many things there are against homosexuality, let alone those that the government is behind. It makes me so sad
06/11/2010
Sir Sir
Quote:
Originally posted by Jul!a
I really didn't know. I'm sure I would be very surprised to even find out how many things there are against homosexuality, let alone those that the government is behind. It makes me so sad
Me too. *Sighs.* Well, let's hope that here in the U.S., people wake up some. Homosexuality doesn't mean that the blood's faulty...so I do not understand the logic behind it at all.
06/11/2010
Jul!a Jul!a
Quote:
Originally posted by Sir
Me too. *Sighs.* Well, let's hope that here in the U.S., people wake up some. Homosexuality doesn't mean that the blood's faulty...so I do not understand the logic behind it at all.
I mean, I can see where the thought behind it came from, but at this point with how 'open minded' most of society at least claims to be, I'd think we'd have less issues with this. But I'm with you hoping for a wake up call.
06/11/2010
Sammi Sammi
I had never heard this either. That's really surprising.
06/11/2010
Red Red
Yes its disgusting and homophobic - the wording disqualifies men who have had (even oral) sex with other men, and it also works by association too - if a woman has had sex with a man who has had sex with men it a disqualifier too. Whenever I donate, I tell each and every person I deal with that works for the blood bank that the policy is homophobic and disgusting and wrong and needs to be changed. Some agree, some disagree, some just say nothing - but they all hear, and it makes me feel like I'm possibly contributing to change.

This policy exists in both US and Canada, perhaps elsewhere.

I am *so* happy its being discussed and examined. Hells yes it needs to change.

...

And hey, all y'all who didn't know about this...that make me suspect you've never given blood or its been a while. Time to remedy that. It takes 10 minutes, you get cookies, and you save lives. That's the power of blood.
06/12/2010
VieuxCarre VieuxCarre
I don't know what states this is true in, but when I lived in Lafayette, LA I know that wasn't the case. We had blood drives at my former University quite often and I have many homosexual friends, my homosexual ex-husband included (that's a long story), who gave blood and there was no issue with them giving blood.

I'm glad they're fixing it, though. Homosexual blood isn't poisonous. I wonder what would be said of people who are not homosexual, but transexual and even transgendered. It seems as though this is kind of a mild "attack" on sexuality that is anything other than "straight".

It just seems silly to me to deny people the right to give blood when there's supposedly a shortage here in America. And all of this is probably from the huge AIDS epidemic back in the 80's. It upsets me that we haven't moved forward and progressed with society. *sighs*
06/12/2010
Miss Cinnamon Miss Cinnamon
One of my gay male friends tried to give blood during a high school blood drive years ago, and they turned him away after he revealed that he'd had "relations" with other men (oral sex, that was it). They claimed that they did it because homosexual males are "higher risk" when it comes to contracting HIV. At the time, it seemed unfortunate but "fair", but the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. Indeed, it's hard to see anything but injustice in this so-called regulation now.
06/12/2010
Tuesday Tuesday
The AIDS virus won't give a positive test result for up to six months. So blood banks can't be sure that blood is AIDS free just by testing it. The rule is just to reduce that risk by not accepting blood from a higher risk group.

I'm not supporting the rule. It just seemed from the above comments that maybe people didn't know that it takes so long before blood tests positive for AIDS.

Blood banks are incredibly picky about who they'll accept blood from. My son had severe mono which developed into mono-induced hepatitis. Now he can't ever donate blood either.

People who have had a tattoo in the last year also can't donate.
06/12/2010
Red Red
Quote:
Originally posted by Tuesday
The AIDS virus won't give a positive test result for up to six months. So blood banks can't be sure that blood is AIDS free just by testing it. The rule is just to reduce that risk by not accepting blood from a higher risk group. ... More
Yes, if you've ever had hepatitus, even mono-induced, that would disqualify you, cause you'll always have the antibodies so there's no way to tell if its still there, if I understand that correctly. As would eating meat in the UK during the mad cow outbreak - because prions can't be detected at present, really.

There's no time limit on the having sexual contact with other men. If its ever happened, since the onset of aids (there's a year they quote on the questionnaire) then you're out. If it was truly all about HIV, there would be a one year rule as well.

It will be interesting to see how they reword it and if they specify any particular high risk groups within gay men that still won't be able to donate.
06/12/2010
El-Jaro El-Jaro
I knew a couple gay guys who flat out lied so they could donate plasma. Their reasoning was "Being gay isn't a disease".

I actually feel bad for the person at the counter who has to enforce this rule. They're in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position!
06/12/2010
Jul!a Jul!a
Quote:
Originally posted by Red
Yes its disgusting and homophobic - the wording disqualifies men who have had (even oral) sex with other men, and it also works by association too - if a woman has had sex with a man who has had sex with men it a disqualifier too. Whenever I donate, ... More
I donated blood once, and I had to lie about my weight to do it. I would do it regularly, except that I don't weigh enough to qualify without lying about it. The one time I did they couldn't even use it because I couldn't fill the bag up
06/12/2010
Tuesday Tuesday
Quote:
Originally posted by Jul!a
I donated blood once, and I had to lie about my weight to do it. I would do it regularly, except that I don't weigh enough to qualify without lying about it. The one time I did they couldn't even use it because I couldn't fill the bag up
I don't weigh enough either. Plus anemia is a constant battle for me. I've been told that I have no reserves in my bone marrow. It would be bad for me to donate.

I send love to all those who do donate. Several of my friends have donated gallons.
06/12/2010
Gary Gary
This whole thing made me realize that at the present time, I probably take for granted that a lot of these older laws have caught up with the times and everything is about as fair for one person as they are to the next. This is just insane.
06/14/2010
Liz2 Liz2
The point is to make the blood supply as safe as possible. Even an HIV test is negative it just says you were "OK" about two weeks prior to the test. They also ask, around here anyway, about lifestyle, reg partners and health.
Certain lifestyles are just more risky...
06/15/2010
El-Jaro El-Jaro
Quote:
Originally posted by Liz2
The point is to make the blood supply as safe as possible. Even an HIV test is negative it just says you were "OK" about two weeks prior to the test. They also ask, around here anyway, about lifestyle, reg partners and health.
Certain ... More
I disagree.

I don't see how a homosexual lifestyle is any more risky than a heterosexual lifestyle. People can make poor choices regardless of their sexual orientation.
06/15/2010
Sir Sir
Quote:
Originally posted by El-Jaro
I disagree.

I don't see how a homosexual lifestyle is any more risky than a heterosexual lifestyle. People can make poor choices regardless of their sexual orientation.
I agree with you, Mr. Sauce. I do not understand why the assumption is that homosexual men, in particular, are more prone to it, when the population that HIV has affected the most is actually heterosexual women. That does not mean, however, that every heterosexual woman has it, but it also doesn't mean that every homosexual man has it either. The logic behind it is completely flawed.
06/15/2010
Red Red
Looks like no changes will be made (thanks sexis for the link): link

The LA times very succinctly clarifies the core homophobic issue:

"A key point of contention at the two-day hearing in suburban Washington was the disparate treatment of gays, who incur a lifetime ban for a single sex act even years in the past, and heterosexual men or women, who are required to defer giving blood for only one year if they have sex with someone with HIV."
06/15/2010
Carrie Ann Carrie Ann
Quote:
Originally posted by Red
Looks like no changes will be made (thanks sexis for the link): link

The LA times very succinctly clarifies the core homophobic issue:

"A key point of contention at the two-day hearing in suburban Washington was the disparate ... More
Ridiculous.
06/15/2010
Owl Identified Owl Identified
Yup, which is kind of odd since gay men are no longer a particularly high risk group. More heterosexual people (just in terms of numbers) have HIV/AIDS than those of other sexual orientations. It's kind of a weird antiquated thing that I don't think will survive much longer.
06/16/2010
Owl Identified Owl Identified
Quote:
Originally posted by Owl Identified
Yup, which is kind of odd since gay men are no longer a particularly high risk group. More heterosexual people (just in terms of numbers) have HIV/AIDS than those of other sexual orientations. It's kind of a weird antiquated thing that I ... More
I should specify that I'm talking about the United States. Statistics very from nation to nation (and the methods through which statistics are gathered vary too).
06/16/2010
bzzingbee bzzingbee
Wow, I hadn't heard this either. It doesn't even seem like a question they should be able to ask when you go in to give blood. They're going to test it anyways to make sure the blood is safe...so why does it matter what your sexual orientation is?
06/16/2010
Gary Gary
I understand the concept of high risk groups, but if that just comes down to discriminating against people based on the honor system of truthfully volunteering information... it is a very flawed system!
06/16/2010
Gunsmoke Gunsmoke
I've donated blood for over 30 years. They have many restrictions - they are not based on sexual orientation. Here are some other prohibitions:

If you've lived on Europe for more than a certain period of time (don't remember the exact period.

If you take drugs like proscar, avodart and several others.

If you've had cancer

If you've had a piercing or tattoo within 1 year

If your pregnant

If you have paid for sex - male or female

The list is much longer than this - it's a safety issue. Plain and simple.

They can't take the risk of HIV or Hepatitis getting past testing. If you're getting this blood - you'd be glad they are so careful!
06/17/2010
DONOTSHOPHERETHEOWNERISPSYCHO DONOTSHOPHERETHEOWNERISPSYCHO
Gunsmoke is right. The list of restrictions is long link .

I agree that the system is flawed for a few reasons. Specifically because it relies on people's memory of their actions and medical history AND that they be completely honest about them. Some of the restrictions are extreme and need to be revisited and altered, but it's more irritating to me that people lie about their histories on purpose. Especially when they think they know better than the people who process the blood and set up those restrictions. It's dangerous and they aren't really hurting the people making the rules by doing this. They're putting the people who are sick and need that blood at risk. And when you lie about your weight you're putting yourself at risk. The rules and restrictions are there for a reason, however ridiculous you may believe they are, and it is far better for you to be honest about everything than to lie to try to cheat a system that's in place for the safety of everyone involved.
06/18/2010
Gary Gary
Quote:
Originally posted by DONOTSHOPHERETHEOWNERISPSYCHO
Gunsmoke is right. The list of restrictions is long link .

I agree that the system is flawed for a few reasons. Specifically because it relies on people's memory of their actions and medical history AND that they be completely honest ... More
Well put!
06/18/2010
Miss Cinnamon Miss Cinnamon
Quote:
Originally posted by DONOTSHOPHERETHEOWNERISPSYCHO
Gunsmoke is right. The list of restrictions is long link .

I agree that the system is flawed for a few reasons. Specifically because it relies on people's memory of their actions and medical history AND that they be completely honest ... More
Whether or not I agree with the decision to not allow gay men to give love, I do agree that it's a bad idea to lie about your history. If you're hurting anyone, it'll be the patients. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.
06/18/2010
lkjfds lkjfds
Quote:
Originally posted by Gunsmoke
I've donated blood for over 30 years. They have many restrictions - they are not based on sexual orientation. Here are some other prohibitions:

If you've lived on Europe for more than a certain period of time (don't remember the ... More
If it is a safety issue, then they should not be allowing 18-24 year olds to donate. The last time I did any research on HIV, that was the age group most likely to be infected, regardless of sexual orientation.

[On a side note, you can donate after getting a tattoo/piercing IF the parlor you got it at has a certification-thing. I got my tattoo a year ago and have been able to donate since then.]
06/22/2010
  • 1
  • 2
Total posts: 46
Unique posters: 23