Giving Blood?

Thanks for starting this thread theres a few things I've wanted to get off my chest after I donated blood 3 weeks ago.

I live in melbourne and donated with the red cross blood service and noticed that they had these questions (as already posted above)

okay here it goes:

1. Why do gay/bi men or the ppl who have had sex with them have to wait 12 months when the same thing doesn't apply to ppl who have had heterosexual sex, even if it's unprotected high risk sex and they've had many partners?

2. Why isn't there a question that just asks "have you had sexual activity with 1 or more partners in the last 12 months?"? This would filter out everyone who even had a miniscule chance of having any STD including HIV/AIDS if that is the intention of the questions.

3. If they are discriminating (logically) against gay sex because anal sex has a higher risk of transmission of STDs then why don't they consider that A:not all gay sex is anal sex and B:straight couples have anal sex too. It's just silly how it's doesn't take into account that "male to male sex" can mean many different things some of which are less risky than common forms of heterosexual sex like vaginal sex.

4. Why is there these 'gay/bi specific' questions and not even at the least a question that asks "have you had unprotected sex in the last 12 months?"

and Finally:
Why does it matter if a certain group has a slightly higher risk of HIV/AIDS if all the blood is legally required to be tested anyway. And if they would discriminate against gays for this, why wouldn't they discriminate against heterosexual people who have a higher risk of other STDs

I just think it's discrimination, not that they have the question but just that they don't have an equal one for everyone who is at the same risk of STDs and that the question doesn't take into account anything like oral protected sex (far lower risk than anal)

It just makes me sad to think that someone could be in long term commited relatonship with another man and neither of them could give blood even if they both had got tested numerous times.

a doctor talks about some of my points in this article http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2008/08/gay-blood-ban-hearing-red-cross-ignores.html


Thank you very much if you took the time to read this

 

you know guys, this is rather silly, you don't see people who went to Africa or another third world country complaining. If you look at the questionnair they give you when u go to donate blood, tis really freakin intense. There are SOOOOOO many more trials you have to pass to donate rather than if ur gay or not. seriously, this isn't picking on homosexuals. Stop the silliness.

 

I agree.

It’s completely biased against homosexuals and bisexuals, blood donation in the US is a complete hetero-based institution and it says a lot about the current fear of another HIV/AIDS epidemic- which is illogical. As a country, people are educated about the risk factors of unprotected sex, and doctors can determine blood results much faster than they used to. I personally feel that it's controlled by people who feel that by eliminating donors who had male to male sex or any sort of “questionable” sex, they completely eliminate the possibility of any gay or bi men from contributing HIV/AIDS. Yet what sticks out as offensive is leveling off male-to-male sex with having sex with a prostitute as equally dangerous to blood donation. That is to say, that gay or bi men are as big of risks as prostitutes. It disgusts me that this is even considered. Sheer injustice.

The ignorance in the situation is that heterosexual couples carry just as large of a chance of carrying STDS or HIV/AIDS and are given special privileges to donate despite the possibility of their viral status, which may be HIV positive. Their blood simply gets discarded without any further question when tested for anything dangerous. How is it morally justified that they refuse homosexuals just because they assume all donations will be HIV/AIDS positive? What does it say about society? We live in a homo-phobic and heterosexual institution. It's unfortunate and discriminatory against eligible gay or bi men who could donate healthy blood and save someone's life. Maybe it's a fear of becoming "gay" after using their blood, but on any level it's just wrong.

Blood donation is just another one of those issues that cannot simply be ignored. Men are being denied their rights and liberty as citizens to help others. I feel a fire in my core, this issue makes me so furious.

 

it
is
not
a
personal
attack
against
gays.

 

maby you'r right.

 

It is blatantly discriminatory gay/bi men who could save up to 3 lives per donation!

I mean these rules were initially made as a result of fear of HIV transmission after the HIV/AIDS epidemic, a time when little was known about the virus which lead to many misconceptions.

No, it's not a personal attack on gays (In the mind of people who still let these rules exist) they mean well but they're just ignorant, ignorant of the fact that male to male sex does not deserve to be catergorised in the same level of risk as that of sex with a prostitute. The greatest example of the discrimination of this rule is in the undeniable fact that all the blood must be tested anyway.
The only reason these rules still exist is because people still think things like "AIDS is a gay disease"
These sort of things are completely illogical and cause a lot of emotional stress to the gay community, making them feel the stigma of having a disease and alienating them from society because of their sexuality regardless of whether or not they even have an STD at all.

It just makes me sick to think that they would deny gay/bi men the right to donate unless they abstain for 12+ months or even not allow them to donate permanently (This disgusts me the most), give privilege to heterosexual men and women regardless of their equal risk of STD transmission and then on top of that complain that there is a shortage of blood!



No it's not biased, not an attack on gay men. They're just making sure no one gets hurt... right?

No one gets hurt, no one apart from the people who are subject to this and other prejudices based purely on their sexuality, those that miss out on the blood that could save their lives, and their families who have to loose their loved one just because an organisation was too proud to admit that they were wrong.

 

yeah, watingsucks really build off what I was saying, i did not say it was a direct attack on gay or bi men, i said it was an injustice to them. clearly it's not a direct or personal attack, i said it was an injustice to one's sexuality.

 

right on joe! haha!

 

I agree, some of the questions are annoying as hell.

 

so... we all know gay men are the most suseptible to contracting HIV/AIDS. correct?

well... that leads me to the question, "How long does it take for HIV/AIDS to show up in a blood test after initial infection?"

source: outreachinc.org

even if the blood is tested, it can take up to 6 months of contracting it for it to show up in a test. and if thats the time a person can be most infectious, then there is a reason for the blood ban. or am i misunderstanding the above info?

and hahah, to any of you who might think theyre being discriminate against gays, im gonna correct you and say "gays who arent virgins." hah.

 

Exactly. thank you.

 

I Given Blood Twice XD I just say no but also im a virgin so im allowed to XD

 

But well what if you have had sex with a male since 1977 what difference does it make if you are female or male and did that germs and virus bugs don;t generally read laws lol and conform to archaic phobic ideals lmao

 

I think the main point of giving Blood is to help save lives, if thats why you want to give blood then shut the hell up and lie.
Otherwise if thats not why you want to give blood then i suggest you don't do it because you want to for the wrong reasons.

 

I've never given blood. Stuff at boarding school meant I would be excluded before I was even old enough to give.