The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bans donation of blood by any man who has had sexual contact with a man, even once since 1977. The law went into place in 1983 at the height of the aids epidemic, before we had testing in place for HIV. Take a look at this website National Gay Blood Drive and watch the video. Make a statement by getting involved, and attempting to donate blood to send a message.
well, it's so racist and unfair that they don't let us donate our blood! anyway, i got involved and maybe i will offer to donate blood, even though i don't like neadles through my skin... just to show them that they are not the leaders of the world!!!!!!!!!!
The ban is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, they do blood tests now, so they don't need to ask about the donor's sexual life, nor is it any of their business. Second of all, straight people can also have HIV, so, by their own logic, they should ban heterosexuals from donating as well. Third of all, I assume they're ignoring the fact that people can get HIV non-sexually. With all the reasons I listed above, and all of the people out there that desperately need blood, why is this law still standing in the 21st century? I'm not a gay man, obviously, but I hope some of the gay men here see this thread and are inspired to donate blood.
ugh, YES! It makes me so angry that people STILL have this idea that all LGBT+ people have HIV and aids, and just spread STD's around all the time. I don't know why they choose to ignore the fact that you can get HIV from many bodily fluids coming in to contact with your mucus membranes (meaning you can get it by another persons bodily fluids entering your nose, mouth, eyes, vagina, anus ect) meaning straight people can get it just as easily as gay people, and saying anything different is just another reason homophobes use in an attempt to justify their hatred for gay people.
I don't like needles through me so I could honestly care less but I really think that those DUMB ASS COCK SUCKING MOTHER FUCKING TWO CENT HOES NEED TO END THIS HORSE SHIT!
Yeah, totally ridiculous. I'm debating whether to lie next time I donate blood... I mean, they test that crap anyway. And it's a law based in bias and misintentions. I had no problems donating the first time but things happened a couple weeks after I donated.
Well, it may be unfair, but it's not racist-being gay or lesbian doesn't mean that you are from a different race. Actually, they *ARE* the leaders of our world. Instead of donating blood without disclosing your sexual orientation (which I would NEVER do) I would seek to change the policy. I think it's irresponsible for people to take it upon themselves to donate blood just to prove a point. As I said on a previous thread regarding this topic, this type of thread is precisely the reason I refuse blood transfusions.
Yeah... Don't they test the blood for STDS BEFORE they insert it into the person in need? What's the point of the ban?
I refuse to give blood as I discovered while I was in the military that the American Red Cross gets soldiers to donate blood and then sells it back to the military. So I don't donate. If a family member or friend needed it I certainly would, but I have a hard time donating without a cause involved. I know it seems selfish, but it is already difficult for me to get an injection, so donating blood is damn near impossible due to my fear of needles....
I wouldn't do it to prove a point - the only way I would be able to donate blood is by NOT talking about it. It's not irresponsible because it doesn't increase risk of anyone getting an STD - unless you have had sex in the past 6 months or knowingly have an STD, but that applies to ALL sexual orientations. I'm currently neither old nor large enough to donate blood. I'm not sure if I'd be able to without freaking out.
Well, that's the entire point. By not disclosing you are in fact making a point. It's not for you to decide whether donating blood is appropriate--that's the entire point of the discussion. The fact that there are guidelines--whether we as a group think they are inappropriate, or misguided, or stupid, or whatever adjective you want to associate with them, does not negate the fact that the guidelines exist. I for one would not supersede my own opinion with that of medical professionals. Especially since donating blood may have negative (and permanent) repercussions for other people. I really do think it's sad that most here would roll the dice with someone else's health to prove a point. ---------- Post added 3rd Jun 2014 at 11:04 PM ---------- Using your own words, let's play a game: Don't they test the blood for AIDS BEFORE they insert it into the person in need? What's the point of the ban? Don't they test the blood for autoimmune diseases BEFORE they insert it into the person in need? What's the point of the ban? Don't they test the blood for (insert disease) BEFORE they insert it into the person in need? What's the point of the ban?
But the thing is that it isn't rolling the dice. It's providing, good, clean blood to people that may need it. If you are unsure if you have an STD or know you do, that is completely different.
Any time you are infusing blood into someone, you are in fact rolling the dice. Medicine and tests are not 100% accurate. And certainly neither are people's beliefs as to the status of their health.
You're right. Why don't we just stop ALL blood transfusions because straight people also can't be 100% sure if they have an STD?
Well, that's why you disclose behaviors that would put you in a risk category. Which is why non-disclosure is so inappropriate in this context.
Okay, thinking about it, and I'm pretty undecided on the subject of whether it's okay to not disclose. I think gay male sex should not be a reason to be placed at such a high risk, and it definitely should be changed to allow more clean blood to be in the blood banks. However, I'm just not sure if lying about it is okay because of this.
