Gay Blood Donation

Nice work dude! I'm a CNA, and have seen this problem first-hand when I'm working at blood drives. Way to go!

 

I give blood, but I'm not sexually active. The questionnaires on the UK blood-donor forms say 'Have you had sex with someone of the same gender in the past year?' and other questions similar to that. They don't specifically ask your sexuality.

What I don't get is, surely they test the blood before giving a transfusion to a patient? Straight people have anal sex, carry STDs and other things, so I don't really get why having sex with someone of the same gender is a huge deal.

 

You've got it right! In America, all of the blood is tested before going into the blood bank. I think it's just one of those old rules that is still on the books because no one's bothered to remove it. It seems a little ridiculous in my opinion.

 

I'm just going to continue giving blood, even if I do have sex with a man. I know it would be extremely safe-sex if I did and that the blood is going to be thoroughly tested before being pumped into someone else.

Giving blood is one of those things I chose to do because it gives me a real sense of self-worth and I love the thought of saving lives. My blood is as valuable as anyone else's and I refuse to put lives at risk by not giving blood. Straight people giving blood have more change of carrying a disease than I do!

 

I didn't think there was an issue with this in Ireland, but I just looked at the form for blood donation and is has this:

That's really disappointing, but I think I agree with what Lewissss said. If they test it for HIV/AIDS and other STDs, there is no issue at all, regardless of what type of sex you're having. Straight people get HIV/AIDs too, and easily as well.

 

I'm still a virgin and have donated blood twice. I'm not sure if I'm donating a third time, because apparently if I had sex with my boyfriend my blood would be more dangerous than that of a man who was having sex with an HIV-positive woman, and therefore I would be banned for life from donating blood. Why? Because you can never know for sure if your partner has a serious infection.

 

This is awful. I had no idea this was even a rule. Anyone gay or straight can have unprotected sex so it makes no sense that someone who's trying to save lives would be denied that chance. I truly hope this gets changed. I have had blood transfusions and they saved my life. It's too bad that someone else may have missed out on their chance if they didn't have blood for them especially if they had a rare blood type.

 

So this really is an outdated rule. As you mentioned the Red Cross and other groups have recommended that the FDA remove the rule, but no joy.

The reason for the rule was that when AIDS first appeared in North America no one knew what it was. At the time the time the only thing we knew was that gay men were getting sick and dying. So at that time the rule made sense.

In the last 30 years we have learned a lot about HIV and AIDS, so the rule really is not needed anymore. It really is a case of being too cautious.

This over cautiousness dosen't just impact gay men. I have a friend that can not donate because she carries antibodies for feline HIV. She was poked by a needle working in a vets office. It will cause false positive on the preliminary test. Because of this neither she nor her husband can donate.

 

Then everyone who has had sex should be banned.

The rule exists, as someone else stated, because when AIDs/HIV first appeared, all people knew is that it appeared to be predominantly in gay men.

However, since then, IIRC, it's actual more common in heterosexual individuals now.

It's an outdated rule. All blood is tested before being sent to hospitals/stored/etc. They just feel they need to ban people who have had homosexual sex between men to "prevent" wasting time on testing their blood.

 

This applies to trans women as well. They assume that all trans women are homosexual men. Despite that if we do have sex with men, chances are it's with heterosexual men and not homosexual. Also, lesbians are completely ignored by this ban. Trans men are still allowed to donate organs and blood, though.

 

If they have accurate tests for the blood before it goes into the bank I don't see why the ban is necessary. If those tests don't have very high accuracy then this subject is a little murkier. The fact this that HIV is more prevelant amoung gay men, by a pretty large margin, compared to heteros and lesbians.

 

I hate the ban on homosexuals giving blood too. In the UK this only changed from ever having sex with a male to 1 year since having sex this year or last year and I still think this is way too long.

I do understand why it is in place though as gay men have a higher probability of contracting HIV and there should be a minimum period after sex with a new partner due to the incubation period of HIV where antibodies are not produced yet therefore even though the person is affected, the result will be negative.

 

I forgot to mention-
I also received 13 units of blood, this past month alone. So I wanted to thank every single one of you that has donated, or tried to donate! It really does make a difference! I'm sure I have a gay man's blood in me, and am just as thankful for that as I am to straight men (and women, don't forget the women!) So thanks!

 

I know right? It just makes no sense.

 

Good topic to write on. Yeah, it bothers me that men that have been sexually active with other men are automatically banned from giving blood. It's troublesome because I thought the banks had to test the blood anyway? Why the need for a discriminatory ban?

It doesn't make sense to me. Sure, rates are higher among gay men than straight men/women when looking at total group population. But rates are higher among straight people than they are among lesbians, so why are straight people allowed to give blood if it's all about risk? And if it's about anal sex, well lots of straight people have anal sex. African Americans have the highest HIV risk among races, but they are not banned from giving blood (not suggesting they should be). The whole system seems messed up to me.

Rates are high among several groups, not just MSM. So I don't get why gay/bisexual men are singled out.

 

I mean all your questions can be answered through practicality. They can't ban AA's because that'd be RACIST! There aren't enough lesbians to fill an already strained blood supply. The fact that straight people have anal sex too doesn't diminish the fact that the virus is spreading faster in the gay male population (I assume it still is, but I'v never looked into it). They might be having anal sex, but straight anal sex is less likely to be involved with HIV.

 

I used to think that way. Then a friend of mine who openly gave blood told me how he was treated when the nurses called him up for his annual donation, and he admitted that he was now living openly gay. Even though he was a virgin at the time, she berated and made judgmental comments on the phone.

Some time later I bumped into 2 punks (I say punks because they were immature and ignorant) handing out pamphlets promoting blood donation. They asked me to donate and I politely said "I can't, I'm gay, and there is still a ban on homosexual donors." They looked at one another, scratched their heads and said "Being gay is okay, just as long as you haven't had sex with a man.", because heterosexual sex is 100% safe.

So I politely explained to them that as a gay man, I frequently suck dick and allow guys to fuck me in the ass, and sometimes I fuck them, much in the same way they would penetrate the girls they like. Then I walked away. I know these are only 2 incidents, but they are enough to have me realize I don't need to help the ignorant.

I'm keeping my gay blood thank you.