NationStates Jolt Archive

I read an article awhile ago, and it came up in discussion in Socrates Cafe, so I'm curious as to NSG's opinion on the matter.

Should blood banks have the right to refuse to accept blood from a homosexual? Why / Why not?

Yes = Banks should be allowed to refuse
No = Banks should not be allowed to refuse

*Awaits the flames to start burning*

I 'aint touching this thread. No way.

In before the flamefest and lock.

Should just do STI tests, as well as all of the other standard tests and accept/deny blood from homosexuals based on that. Just like everyone else.

... the fuck?

I'm not voting on this. The only way a bank should be able to deny anybody is through standard tests- homosexuality not being one of them.

YEAH SURE. The banks must be forced to refuse. Gay blood can make the drinker gay too, and you don't want to see what monstrosities will come out of *that*.

The only reason to do this would be if Gay's had a higher percentage of STD;s than non-gay's. Considering this is no longer as true as it used to be (STD cases in hetrosexuals have skyrocketed) and that it's standard practice to check all blood for Infection, genetic mutations and repteloid egg's this is just a stupid idea.

Hell no.

That's not an issue up to discussion.

Magister dixit.

Get someone to close this.

I read an article awhile ago, and it came up in discussion in Socrates Cafe, so I'm curious as to NSG's opinion on the matter.

Should blood banks have the right to refuse to accept blood from a homosexual? Why / Why not?

Yes = Banks should be allowed to refuse
No = Banks should not be allowed to refuse

Ok, and what reason would they have to ban blood from homosexuals?

By this time, testing for HIV, hepatitis and other communicable blood diseases is so fast, cheap and accurate that it's a moot point to exclude people on a health basis above and beyond the routine measures included in any blood drive.

Interestingly, the gay community has long been exemplary in its participation in blood drives, giving in amounts and frequencies far higher than the general population. This proved to be almost disastrous in the early 1980's when blood banks refused to perform HIV testing on their blood despite growing evidence that it was transmissible via blood and a threat to patients simply due to the cost involved. Instead, they attempted a foolish blanket ban that did nothing but reduce the amount of blood donated with no effect on containing the HIV outbreak from blood transfusions.

So no, it's a terrible idea that does nothing but further constrict already strained blood supplies.

Ok, and what reason would they have to ban blood from homosexuals?

It's a well known fact that gay's are really repteloids.

*Awaits the flames to start burning*

I 'aint touching this thread. No way.

Yeah, it has a lot of potential for a flame war, but the discussion wasn't that heated, but I guess we are used to controversial topics.

See, I argued the point that banning it was rather silly, since there were tests and stuff to look for it, so there wasn't really a problem.

The main argument for allowing it is that banks are private organizations, and donating blood isn't a right, so there's no real reason to FORCE a bank to accept blood from anyone.

so I was curious as to NSG's response.

Um, nothing should be done to stop them from donating blood.

As long as there's no diseases etc. But that should be done for anyone, not just homosexuals.

By this time, testing for HIV, hepatitis and other communicable blood diseases is so fast, cheap and accurate that it's a moot point to exclude people on a health basis above and beyond the routine measures included in any blood drive.

Interestingly, the gay community has long been exemplary in its participation in blood drives, giving in amounts and frequencies far higher than the general population. This proved to be almost disastrous in the early 1980's when blood banks refused to perform HIV testing on their blood despite growing evidence that it was transmissible via blood and a threat to patients simply due to the cost involved. Instead, they attempted a foolish blanket ban that did nothing but reduce the amount of blood donated with no effect on containing the HIV outbreak from blood transfusions.

So no, it's a terrible idea that does nothing but further constrict already strained blood supplies.

Right, and that's what I originally argued. However, whether they SHOULD or not isn't the question. The question is whether they have the right to.

The Natinal Blood Service in the UK doesn't accept blood from homosexuals or bisexual people.

It's bloody daft if you ask me.

The Natinal Blood Service in the UK doesn't accept blood from homosexuals or bisexual people.

It's bloody daft if you ask me.

Indeed it is. If the blood is good and passes all conditions required, what´s the problem in accepting it? It can save a life, same as the blood from a heterosexual person.

Hell no.

That's not an issue up to discussion.

Magister dixit.

Get someone to close this.

Oh STFU. It is up for discussion. I don't see where there is any discrimination on my part going on. What, because it has the potential to be controversial, we shouldn't discuss it? Or are you too afraid someone might have a knee-jerk reaction without reading what I'm actually asking and get someone to close this?

Oh wait...

Indeed it is. If the blood is good and passes all conditions required, what´s the problem in accepting it? It can save a life, same as the blood from a heterosexual person.

Right, that's my opinion on whether they should accept it. But again, that's not the question. The question is whether a bank has the right to or not (from a US perspective, I guess, since the banks are privately owned).

Indeed it is. If the blood is good and passes all conditions required, what´s the problem in accepting it? It can save a life, same as the blood from a heterosexual person.

It's ok, my young heterosexual blood is no good to them either. I had a blood transfusion in 1983 and now I might have aids or something.

It's only been 25 years so I might not have noticed or something :rolleyes:.

Right, that's my opinion on whether they should accept it. But again, that's not the question. The question is whether a bank has the right to or not (from a US perspective, I guess, since the banks are privately owned).

Hm... I guess it depends on the bank, since they´re privately owned. I don´t know. Wouldn´t that refusal of the blood constitute as discrimination?

Blood banks are REQUIRED to refuse me.
I used to donate regularly, when I was younger.

Blood banks are REQUIRED to refuse me.
I used to donate regularly, when I was younger.

So....why do they refuse you?

Hm... I guess it depends on the bank, since they´re privately owned. I don´t know. Wouldn´t that refusal of the blood constitute as discrimination?

Well, I'm asking if they have a right to, so that would apply to all banks. If they felt like it, they could, etc.

So....why do they refuse you?
The human body only has 8 pints of blood and they don't want to deflate him?

Straight blood, gay blood... who cares, i'll still drink it. :D

Straight blood, gay blood... who cares, i'll still drink it. :D

:fluffle: You win this thread.

So....why do they refuse you?

He became a communist.


>_>

:fluffle: You win this thread.

Excellent. :cool:

He became a communist.


>_>

We don't want none of your red blood. <.<

We don't want none of your red blood. <.<

We prefer good ol' fashion American blue blood! :D

We prefer good ol' fashion American blue blood! :D

America: Fuck your monarchs, we all have blue blood.

On the basis of them being a homosexual? That makes no sense. Gay blood is no different from straight blood. It comes in A, B, AB and O types and can be either Rh postive or negative. There's no type AB+GAY blood.

On the basis of them being a homosexual? That makes no sense. Gay blood is no different from straight blood. It comes in A, B, AB and O types and can be either Rh postive or negative. There's no type AB+GAY blood.

But we all know that if black blood can turn you black, then gay blood can turn you gay. :p

The only reason to do this would be if Gay's had a higher percentage of STD;s than non-gay's. Considering this is no longer as true as it used to be (STD cases in hetrosexuals have skyrocketed) and that it's standard practice to check all blood for Infection, genetic mutations and repteloid egg's this is just a stupid idea.

Aside from which, do they ever give you blood if you haven't lost a life threatening amount? Would you rather be alive with an STD or dead without one?

Ok, and what reason would they have to ban blood from homosexuals?

They haz teh AIDS because of teh butsecks.

YEAH SURE. The banks must be forced to refuse. Gay blood can make the drinker gay too, and you don't want to see what monstrosities will come out of *that*.

Gay Vampires?

OH SHIT!!!

Super-trendy and super-deadly.

I don't know what other blood banks do, but the American Red Cross (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html) currently doesn't accept blood from anybody with a symptom of HIV infection or anybody with an elevated risk for HIV infection. This isn't defined in terms of identity, it's defined in terms of behavior. Right now, they say:

You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.

You are at risk for getting infected if you:

* have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
* are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
* have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
* have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
* received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia
* were born in, or lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria, since 1977.
* since 1977, received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of these countries, or
* had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of these countries. Learn more about HIV Group O, and the specific African countries where it is found.


So this would exclude from giving blood any non-celibate gay men as well as self-identified straight men who have sex with men. Celibate gay men and healthy lesbians who don't have any of the above risk factors are perfectly welcome to give blood. Obviously most gay men, like most people, are non-celibate, so they would not be eligible to give blood.

I think the Red Cross does have the right to refuse blood from people who are at elevated risk for HIV infection. As far as I know, MSMs still have an elevated risk compared to the general population, even though HIV has spread among the non-MSM population. (If that's not the case, then they should reconsider their policy.)

gay men will try anything to get in me :cool:

I read an article awhile ago, and it came up in discussion in Socrates Cafe, so I'm curious as to NSG's opinion on the matter.

Should blood banks have the right to refuse to accept blood from a homosexual? Why / Why not?

Yes = Banks should be allowed to refuse
No = Banks should not be allowed to refuse

No. They should only be allowed to refuse blood from those who are obviously unsuitable due to serious drug usage or whatever, not because they're a certain sexual orientation.

The only reason to do this would be if Gay's had a higher percentage of STD;s than non-gay's. Considering this is no longer as true as it used to be (STD cases in hetrosexuals have skyrocketed) and that it's standard practice to check all blood for Infection, genetic mutations and repteloid egg's this is just a stupid idea.
The numbers being infected have increased, yes...but gay males are still at higher risk.
Ok, and what reason would they have to ban blood from homosexuals?

Assuming no condom use, receptive anal intercourse will result in 50 infections per 10,000 exposures. This compares to 10/10,000 for receptive vaginal.
Insertive is 6.5/10,000 vs 5/10,000.

blood transfusions are at 9000/10,000.

Mind you, I disagree with the policy, but this is why it was instituted and likely why it remains.

They have every right to reject blood from anyone, particularly to protect others from potentially lethal infections. This policy doesn't target gays, but any male that has had sex with another male. You don't have to be gay, or even bi, for that. Additionally, not all gay men have anal sex.

I don't agree with it, much as I don't agree with their policies regarding piercings and tattoos, but then, I don't have to donate either. I choose to, and I choose to lie about certain things to allow myself to do so. I am tested regularly, they test the supply...the chance of two false negatives is pretty low.

I read an article awhile ago, and it came up in discussion in Socrates Cafe, so I'm curious as to NSG's opinion on the matter.

Should blood banks have the right to refuse to accept blood from a homosexual? Why / Why not?

Yes = Banks should be allowed to refuse
No = Banks should not be allowed to refuse
No. It makes no sense. I'm all for them refusing to take blood from people that engage in anal sex, due to the higher risks involved, but using that as an excuse is unacceptable. There are gays that don't engage in anal sex and there are heterosexuals that do, which would be erroneously excluded or included.

Why should sexual preference determine whether or not you con donate blood.. or do anything for that matter.

They don't allow it here, but I think it's ridiculous, along with a few other rules.

I can understand rules such as "If you've had malaria..." because the anti-bodies stay in your body forever, even twenty years after you've had it, and it's a problem if your blood contains these anti-bodies amongst a populace that doesn't generally suffer from Malaria.

And people who take drugs are not in a healthy enough position to give blood, much like anyone who is ill, no matter the illness. To give blood takes away some of your strength.

I'm not quite sure where I stand on former drug abusers (needles and such) giving blood, if they can show they haven't got any diseases.

Aside from which, do they ever give you blood if you haven't lost a life threatening amount? Would you rather be alive with an STD or dead without one?

Non-life saving operations. Anything that is more a matter of convenience than life and where you need to cut deep into the person, so that you will need blood.

But we all know that if black blood can turn you black, then gay blood can turn you gay. :p

And that is why I will only receive blood from preapproved people that are in line with my genetic make up which means no blacks and no Asians :p

But I think TFA may have hit the nail on the head.

Blood banks should certainly be free to ban people on medical grounds.

For example, between my yellow fever vaccinations, extensive travel in Africa (including the banned Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Niger, and Nigeria), consumption of potentially mad British cows and leukaemia, no blood bank would touch this straight man with a barge pole. And quite rightly, too.

However, homosexuality is not a disease, nor do gay men (and I assume we're talking about men here, aren't we? Can't think of any evil lesbian diseases off-hand) carry any diseases that straight men don't.

Therefore sexuality is not by itself adequate grounds to ban someone from donating blood.

A gay man who shared any one, or combination, of my conditions should be banned from giving blood, but that's entirely irrespective of his sexuality.

I'm surprised to hear that anyone even thinks this is worth a serious debate. Or maybe I'm not. This sort of thing shouldn't really surprise me anymore, I suppose...

Edit:
Reading through the thread properly, I see it's illegal for US-based organisations to take blood from gay men (and women?). Ah well; politically I suppose that doesn't surprise me after all.

So....why do they refuse you?It is illegal in the United States to take blood from homosexuals. Everyone on this thread who thinks that they have options is mistaken.

The only reason you would need to know the donor's sexuality would be to make sure that any member of the Phelp's clan was deliberately given only blood from gay donors.

It is illegal in the United States to take blood from homosexuals. Everyone on this thread who thinks that they have options is mistaken.

So the answer to the OP's question is yes they do have the right. That's it everybody, thread closed, nothing to see here, all back to your homes please.

Move along, move along!

So the answer to the OP's question is yes they do have the right. That's it everybody, thread closed, nothing to see here, all back to your homes please.

Move along, move along!

That's also not what I was asking. I was asking should they.

I don't know what other blood banks do, but the American Red Cross (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html) currently doesn't accept blood from anybody with a symptom of HIV infection or anybody with an elevated risk for HIV infection. This isn't defined in terms of identity, it's defined in terms of behavior. Right now, they say:



So this would exclude from giving blood any non-celibate gay men as well as self-identified straight men who have sex with men. Celibate gay men and healthy lesbians who don't have any of the above risk factors are perfectly welcome to give blood. Obviously most gay men, like most people, are non-celibate, so they would not be eligible to give blood.

I think the Red Cross does have the right to refuse blood from people who are at elevated risk for HIV infection. As far as I know, MSMs still have an elevated risk compared to the general population, even though HIV has spread among the non-MSM population. (If that's not the case, then they should reconsider their policy.)

Quite; and gay men are more likely to engage in anal intercourse than straight ones. And as Sarkhaan mentioned, the risks of STDs are higher in anal intercourse.

Hence why I posed the question. Is the safety risk enough to justify discrimination? And whether it is or not, should private banks have the right to descriminate?

are you talking about an all out ban or a moratorium at say the san francisco blood bank if disease is sweeping the community at the time ?

are you talking about an all out ban or a moratorium at say the san francisco blood bank if disease is sweeping the community at the time ?

Whichever. The core of the question is "should private banks be allowed to discriminate against a group of people based on X factor?"

The Irish Blood Transfusion Service is a state agency, so yeah, they really shouldn't have the right to refuse blood on the grounds that one has had some hot gay loving. Unfortunately they do, despite themselves saying it's offensive and discriminatory. Dumbasses.

Whichever. The core of the question is "should private banks be allowed to discriminate against a group of people based on X factor?"

No, they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against someone donating blood, just because this someone is gay. Then again, since most of them are private, I guess they have their own rules. But no, they shouldn't be allowed.

The Irish Blood Transfusion Service is a state agency, so yeah, they really shouldn't have the right to refuse blood on the grounds that one has had some hot gay loving. Unfortunately they do, despite themselves saying it's offensive and discriminatory. Dumbasses.

What if they deemed the risk to be bad enough to warrant it? And for the sake of argument, let's assume it is.

No, they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against someone donating blood, just because this someone is gay. Then again, since most of them are private, I guess they have their own rules. But no, they shouldn't be allowed.

Why? Everyone seems to forget that part of the question. ;)

Whichever. The core of the question is "should private banks be allowed to discriminate against a group of people based on X factor?"

if its a private bank that's there call. but being they are staff by medical professionals they likely know there is no difference between gay and straight blood.

if its a private bank that's there call. but being they are staff by medical professionals they likely know there is no difference between gay and straight blood.

So you believe that private banks have the right to discriminate? If so, why?

Why? Everyone seems to forget that part of the question. ;)

It's tasty, regardless of gender or sexual preference, thats why. :p

It's tasty, regardless of gender or sexual preference, thats why. :p

Ok, Zero-kun, serious time is at hand.

Why? I seriously have no idea. Maybe my mind's just too lazy today.:tongue:

Ok, Zero-kun, serious time is at hand.

Why? I seriously have no idea. Maybe my mind's just too lazy today.:tongue:

Did I do something wrong? :(

Did I do something wrong? :(

No, Zero-kun, you did not. But I mean, the question asked by Drescon is a serious one.:wink:

What if they deemed the risk to be bad enough to warrant it? And for the sake of argument, let's assume it is.

If some section of society(gays, blacks, the French) were significantly more likely to have some blood borne disease that won't be caught in the normal screening then fine, save a lot of time and effort and money and just don't take their blood. To refer to the IBTS again, anyone who lived for a year or more in the UK between 1980 and 1996 are perma-banned from donating blood, because they might be carrying vCJD.

But blood is already normally screened for HIV, or at least it should be, regardless of who donated it. No reason to exclude any group that may be more likely to have HIV, then.

No, Zero-kun, you did not. But I mean, the question asked by Drescon is a serious one.:wink:

Well, you know me - Ask a serious question, expect a clown answer. :D

That's also not what I was asking. I was asking should they.

Damn you and your logic, and your OP which is easy to check, and your words, and your rightness. You......:p

Refusing to accept blood form a homosexual is as ridiculous as refusing to accept bloiod from someone born on a tuesday.

Refusing to accept blood form a homosexual is as ridiculous as refusing to accept bloiod from someone born on a tuesday.

Ugh! *shudder* born on Tuesday.

Damn you and your logic, and your OP which is easy to check, and your words, and your rightness. You......:p

XD :fluffle: I wish I heard that more often.

It's tasty, regardless of gender or sexual preference, thats why. :p

I dunno. Lesbian blood seems to have a sweeter taste. ;)

If some section of society(gays, blacks, the French) were significantly more likely to have some blood borne disease that won't be caught in the normal screening then fine, save a lot of time and effort and money and just don't take their blood. To refer to the IBTS again, anyone who lived for a year or more in the UK between 1980 and 1996 are perma-banned from donating blood, because they might be carrying vCJD.

But blood is already normally screened for HIV, or at least it should be, regardless of who donated it. No reason to exclude any group that may be more likely to have HIV, then.

Now, and I may be wrong on this, but the way I'm pretty sure they do it, is that they don't actually test each bit of blood individually for stuff like that. They pour a bunch of it in a vat and test that, so if even one bag is infected, the whole vat is tossed.

But I might be wrong; 'tis just what I heard.

I dunno. Lesbian blood seems to have a sweeter taste. ;)

Oh dear gods!:eek2:

I dunno. Lesbian blood seems to have a sweeter taste. ;)

I've never tried that sort of blood... :(

The Natinal Blood Service in the UK doesn't accept blood from homosexuals or bisexual people.

It's bloody daft if you ask me.

Exactly it states if you have ever had anal or oral sex with another man even when wearing a condom.

Now this wouldn't be too bad, at least with regards to anal sex, given the increased risk IF the rule wasn't for straight women who had engaged in anal sex to be able to give blood after a year (or possibly 6 months).

Seriously, normalise it. HIV and indeed many STDs are only detectable after a certain time period, so to reduce the risk have it within the past year, fine, but it's the sexual act that increases the risk, not the sexuality.

Quite; and gay men are more likely to engage in anal intercourse than straight ones. And as Sarkhaan mentioned, the risks of STDs are higher in anal intercourse.

Hence why I posed the question. Is the safety risk enough to justify discrimination? And whether it is or not, should private banks have the right to descriminate?

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is that for whatever reason, MSMs are at higher risk for HIV infection than the general population. If I had to speculate as to why, I'd guess that the elevated risk doesn't just come from higher-risk sexual practices but also from the historical accident of HIV spreading to the West via male/male sexual contact. Since (I assume, again,) most MSMs have sex with other men much more than they have sex with women, then a man engaging in X acts of anal sex with Y partners is at higher risk if those partners are men than if they are women.

Like the Bellman, I'll say this three times: I'm just speculating.

Since we don't have a cure for AIDS, I think that the elevated risk, even if it's a small difference, is enough justification for blood banks to discriminate based on behavior. No test is 100% accurate. I don't think that blood banks should discriminate based only on identity, but I'm not sure any do. I voted "yes" on your poll but I assumed you meant behavior, not identity -- i.e. that a blood bank wouldn't ask "Are you gay?" but "Have you engaged in behavior X?" That may have been a foolish assumption on my part.

So you believe that private banks have the right to discriminate? If so, why?

your going to buy a car.
one dealer just "looks shady" you get the feeling the car is hot or will die half way home.
dealer two looks squared away and you feel his car is an honest deal.
who do you go with ????


Blood banks are 1 private
2 they are the consumer in this case.

Private consumers have the right to buy or not buy from any source they so choose.

Exactly it states if you have ever had anal or oral sex with another man even when wearing a condom.

Now this wouldn't be too bad, at least with regards to anal sex, given the increased risk IF the rule wasn't for straight women who had engaged in anal sex to be able to give blood after a year (or possibly 6 months).

Seriously, normalise it. HIV and indeed many STDs are only detectable after a certain time period, so to reduce the risk have it within the past year, fine, but it's the sexual act that increases the risk, not the sexuality.

Or test all the blood, which they SHOULD be doing already, and consider the type of sex people have irrelevant.

Argh! Stupid misleading poll options.

Private consumers have the right to buy or not buy from any source they so choose.
No, no, no. The laws do not permit that.

Not entirely on topic but interesting given the context of this thread.

Storing donated blood too long increases the chance of an infection, US researchers claim. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7697234.stm)

This is like a Type 1 vs Type 2 error in hypothesis testing.

They need blood, they are short on it. So you have the chance of rejecting blood that would've been good to use, and thus hurting someone who would've needed it. Alternatively there's the chance of using blood that wasn't good, and you're hurting someone by giving them a disease.

It's a matter of weighing up the risks. I personally think it's silly to discriminate based on something like sexual preference, because there clearly are better criteria than that. But given that a hospital will get a minor slap on the wrist if it happens to be short on blood transfusions, and a multi-million dollar lawsuit and nationwide media attention if it gives someone HIV, I can understand if they're being too cautious. The incentives aren't aligned properly.

Can't be bothered to read if someone else has pointed this out, but the NHS in the UK doesn't accept blood from men who have had sex with another man, with or without a condom:

Below is a link to the National Blood Service Website (UK) just for reference. About halfway through, it states:
"You should never give blood if:

......

2 You're a man who's had sex with another man, even safe sex using a condom. "

National Blood Service website (UK) (https://secure.blood.co.uk/c11_cant.asp)

With the explanation in PDF form here: (http://www.blood.co.uk/pdfdocs/position_statement_exclusion.pdf)

Argh! Stupid misleading poll options.

Yeah, that was my fault, sorry. I realized it after I posted, but can't edit polls. :(

Or test all the blood, which they SHOULD be doing already, and consider the type of sex people have irrelevant.

As I mentioned, certain STDs, certainly HIV will NOT show up on a blood test immediatly after infection. It takes several months (about 3 I think) to be able to pick it up. So I think it's reasonable and indeed desirable to reduce risk by not accepting blood from people who have engaged in behaviours which produce a higher risk (injecting drugs, tattoos, piercings and yes, anal sex) within this period. But any discrimination should be based purely on the behaviour involved.

It's a matter of weighing up the risks. I personally think it's silly to discriminate based on something like sexual preference, because there clearly are better criteria than that. But given that a hospital will get a minor slap on the wrist if it happens to be short on blood transfusions, and a multi-million dollar lawsuit and nationwide media attention if it gives someone HIV, I can understand if they're being too cautious. The incentives aren't aligned properly.
No, no, no. The downside is that if they take my blood they are violating the law and subject to heavy fines. The OP is in error thinking that there is any uncoerced choice being made here.

No, no, no. The downside is that if they take my blood they are violating the law and subject to heavy fines. The OP is in error thinking that there is any uncoerced choice being made here.

Explain. This is a "should" question, current laws are irrelevant.

Since testing for HIV or other bloodborne diseases is so easy these days, there is no justification for refusing blood donations from homosexuals. Now, if there were no easy, reliable tests for such diseases, then given the high rate of HIV among homosexual men, there would be a justification.

As I mentioned, certain STDs, certainly HIV will NOT show up on a blood test immediatly after infection. It takes several months (about 3 I think) to be able to pick it up. So I think it's reasonable and indeed desirable to reduce risk by not accepting blood from people who have engaged in behaviours which produce a higher risk (injecting drugs, tattoos, piercings and yes, anal sex) within this period. But any discrimination should be based purely on the behaviour involved.

In that case, then refusing blood from people who have had anal sex in the last few months is permissible.

Since testing for HIV or other bloodborne diseases is so easy these days, there is no justification ...

But again, that's not the question. The question is whether they should have a right to.

We don't have a cure for HIV, but is there something we could do to the blood that would kill the HIV virus in donated blood without harming the blood? For instance, could it be lowered to a temperature at which the HIV virus if present could not survive without damaging the blood?

But again, that's not the question. The question is whether they should have a right to.

Too late. You've released the thread into the wild and it is now beyond your control.

your going to buy a car.
one dealer just "looks shady" you get the feeling the car is hot or will die half way home.
dealer two looks squared away and you feel his car is an honest deal.
who do you go with ????


Blood banks are 1 private
2 they are the consumer in this case.

Private consumers have the right to buy or not buy from any source they so choose.

that is simply called discrimination and no one should discriminate, private or public

We don't have a cure for HIV, but is there something we could do to the blood that would kill the HIV virus in donated blood without harming the blood? For instance, could it be lowered to a temperature at which the HIV virus if present could not survive without damaging the blood?

Sadly, no.

It can be screened with limited effect but that costs time and money.

I read an article awhile ago, and it came up in discussion in Socrates Cafe, so I'm curious as to NSG's opinion on the matter.

Should blood banks have the right to refuse to accept blood from a homosexual? Why / Why not?

Yes = Banks should be allowed to refuse
No = Banks should not be allowed to refuse

Even non-gays can have (and often do have) blood-borne pathogens that are resistant to, or immune to (due to structure) antibiotics. If the banks test, they should not. If they're "Draw and toss" outfits, then...well...no. It's not a matter o' discrimination, it's a matter of if it ain't tested first, don't put it in the accident victim or soldier, period.

We don't have a cure for HIV, but is there something we could do to the blood that would kill the HIV virus in donated blood without harming the blood? For instance, could it be lowered to a temperature at which the HIV virus if present could not survive without damaging the blood?
The virus is not alive in the first place. It just changes the cells, that's why they are so difficult to kill. Drugs can only keep the infected cells from replicating, but some viruses such as HIV and Oncovirus (cancer) are nearly impossible to affect.


Since testing for HIV or other bloodborne diseases is so easy these days, there is no justification for refusing blood donations from homosexuals.
It isn't easy at all. Actually, it's extremely difficult.

Most HIV tests can only detect the body defending against HIV, not the virus itself. If the body doesn't defend enough, the test doesn't detect anything. And there's a delay of up to half a year between the infection and the defense; for all that time, the blood is infectious, but tests negative. Some more complex and expensive tests do detect the virus and not just antibodies, but they require a fairly large concentration of the virus, while an infection takes much less.

A proper test isn't simple, and, to ensure 99% reliability (still far from perfect!), the blood has to be stored for at least 4 months, with testing of the donor both before the blood is taken and after that waiting period, before the blood is to be transferred to the recipient. And blood can't be stored for 4 months, it spoils, so no test is reliable enough.

With that in mind, it's pretty clear why there are attempts to screen out any risk groups.

By this time, testing for HIV, hepatitis and other communicable blood diseases is so fast, cheap and accurate that it's a moot point to exclude people on a health basis above and beyond the routine measures included in any blood drive.

Interestingly, the gay community has long been exemplary in its participation in blood drives, giving in amounts and frequencies far higher than the general population. This proved to be almost disastrous in the early 1980's when blood banks refused to perform HIV testing on their blood despite growing evidence that it was transmissible via blood and a threat to patients simply due to the cost involved. Instead, they attempted a foolish blanket ban that did nothing but reduce the amount of blood donated with no effect on containing the HIV outbreak from blood transfusions.

So no, it's a terrible idea that does nothing but further constrict already strained blood supplies.
Okay, it's cheaper than it used to be to test blood, but why reduce profits by testing blood from sources that are more likely to be tainted? There's a list of, maybe 50, conditions that exempt people from donating. Some as simple as a cold.

If a pre-screen can eliminate donors that are likely to be giving tainted blood, why not use it? The better the test to pass ratio is, the more profit the company is going to make. And you know that profits are good for everyone.

If there's a real emergency, or shortage, then sure, accept and test blood from everyone that can be tested for tainted blood.

Okay, it's cheaper than it used to be to test blood, but why reduce profits by testing blood from sources that are more likely to be tainted? There's a list of, maybe 50, conditions that exempt people from donating. Some as simple as a cold.

If a pre-screen can eliminate donors that are likely to be giving tainted blood, why not use it? The better the test to pass ratio is, the more profit the company is going to make. And you know that profits are good for everyone.

If there's a real emergency, or shortage, then sure, accept and test blood from everyone that can be tested for tainted blood.

Because it makes no sense when there's not enough to go around... if people's lives depend on it, it's fucking stupid to bar someone from donating blood just because they're teh gay.

You seem to be missing the point of the exercise.

By this time, testing for HIV, hepatitis and other communicable blood diseases is so fast, cheap and accurate that it's a moot point to exclude people on a health basis above and beyond the routine measures included in any blood drive.
Are you referring to stuff like this?
http://www.medgadget.com/archives/img/oraquick.jpg

It's not a test, it's a quick check, and doesn't replace proper testing. Just like the existence of surgical masks doesn't eliminate the need for Level IV biohazard labs and fully isolated life support hazmats suits, for certain tasks. Or like a look at the indicators in an airplane is no replacement for an actual inspection.
A proper testing, as said above, has to be done twice, with a waiting period in between, which actually for at least 95% reliability should be longer than the acceptable storage time of blood.

Surely, it's better to take oraquick before shagging with an unknown partner than not to. It will detect a well developed infection. But that's all there is to it.

I'm sure you would object to flying an airline which safely completes 99% of the flights.

Because it makes no sense when there's not enough to go around... if people's lives depend on it, it's fucking stupid to bar someone from donating blood just because they're teh gay.

You seem to be missing the point of the exercise.
No, I think I got it pretty well. Read the last sentence.

that is simply called discrimination and no one should discriminate, private or public

Of course people have the right to discriminate, we all do it.

Whats your fave band?

Didn't read the OP and voted wrong.
Since the higher risk is minimal, the idea of banning homosexual males from donating blood is absurd. The constant need for blood makes the matter even worse, and the blood banks shouldn't have to right to exclude people on such shaky grounds.

There is just as much chance of blood from a straight person being HIV Positive but they don't ban them from giving blood. It's about time that eople woke up and realised that being homo/bisexual doesn't mean that you've automatically got a disease or that you are some sort of monster.

no way should gay people be stopped from giving blood. If they want to, then let them, anyone who says yes in this poll are idiots

Depends if it's a private bank or not. A publicly funded bank should only discriminate based on test results for medical conditions. A private blood bank should be run as the owner sees fit and if that leads to them closing down because they offended too many potential donors or clients then it's their problem.

no way should gay people be stopped from giving blood. If they want to, then let them, anyone who says yes in this poll are idiots

Hey :(

There is just as much chance of blood from a straight person being HIV Positive but they don't ban them from giving blood. It's about time that eople woke up and realised that being homo/bisexual doesn't mean that you've automatically got a disease or that you are some sort of monster.

Can you back that claim up at all?

Whoah i accidentally put *yes wen i meant *no

Can you back that claim up at all?


They got rid of the name "The Gay Disease" exactly for that purpose. Heterosexual blood is just as likely to get infected with HIV/AIDS as Homosexual blood.

They got rid of the name "The Gay Disease" exactly for that purpose. Heterosexual blood is just as likely to get infected with HIV/AIDS as Homosexual blood.

Meh I have never heard it called the gay disease, but that is still not backing up the claim.

With that in mind, it's pretty clear why there are attempts to screen out any risk groups.

The problem in this case is that, instead of basing their questions on actual risk factors, they're just singling out a group who they will assume have engaged in risky behavior.

A homosexual man who has only ever had one monogamous partner and used protection is at significantly less risk for having HIV than a heterosexual man who has been promiscuous and regularly engaged in unprotected sex.

But the questions they ask don't cover that. Instead, it's "Are you a man who has ever had sex with another man since 1977?" (I think that's the year). They don't even ask about promiscuity or the use of protection - which are actually risk factors for HIV infection.

The problem in this case is that, instead of basing their questions on actual risk factors, they're just singling out a group who they will assume have engaged in risky behavior.

A homosexual man who has only ever had one monogamous partner and used protection is at significantly less risk for having HIV than a heterosexual man who has been promiscuous and regularly engaged in unprotected sex.

But the questions they ask don't cover that. Instead, it's "Are you a man who has ever had sex with another man since 1977?" (I think that's the year). They don't even ask about promiscuity or the use of protection - which are actually risk factors for HIV infection.
The blood banks aren't worried about the exceptional cases, they are playing the odds. Like I said before, they want a high pass/test ratio and accepting blood from a high risk group only lowers that ratio.

The blood banks aren't worried about the exceptional cases, they are playing the odds. Like I said before, they want a high pass/test ratio and accepting blood from a high risk group only lowers that ratio.So why bother with something so vague as "gay"? Why not ask for people who "engage in anal sex" and single them out? The high risk group is people who engage in anal sex, and while gays are more likely to do so, it doesn't really make sense to focus on a group that has a high correlation with the high risk group instead of the high risk group themselves.

So why bother with something so vague as "gay"? Why not ask for people who "engage in anal sex" and single them out? The high risk group is people who engage in anal sex, and while gays are more likely to do so, it doesn't really make sense to focus on a group that has a high correlation with the high risk group instead of the high risk group themselves.
Have you looked at the list of disqualifications from the FDA?

Have you looked at the list of disqualifications from the FDA?Not in depth, seeing as I meet the "too German" one.

Not in depth, seeing as I meet the "too German" one.
It's pretty long. I wouldn't be surprised to find "engaged in anal sex" as one of the disqualifying conditions. Even having sex with a prostitute is a disqualifier. But, remember that these guys are playing the odds, so a heterosexual couple that does engage in anal sex is probably less likely, statistically, to transmit AIDS than is a homosexual couple.

The blood banks aren't worried about the exceptional cases, they are playing the odds.

I don't think sexually safe homosexuals are "exceptional cases". Neither are sexually unsafe heterosexuals.

Like I said before, they want a high pass/test ratio and accepting blood from a high risk group only lowers that ratio.

And they do accept blood from people in a high risk group - sexually unsafe heterosexuals.

It's pretty long. I wouldn't be surprised to find "engaged in anal sex" as one of the disqualifying conditions. Even having sex with a prostitute is a disqualifier. But, remember that these guys are playing the odds, so a heterosexual couple that does engage in anal sex is probably less likely, statistically, to transmit AIDS than is a homosexual couple.

I give blood on a regular basis. I have yet to be asked if I have engaged in anal sex. In fact, specific sexual acts are not questioned at all - the only questions asked deal with who my partners may have been.

They also don't ask anything about promiscuity or protection, both of which would be absolutely necessary questions if they were going to accurately gauge my risk for being infected with HIV. In fact, those factors are FAR more important in determining risk than whether or not a man has had sex even once with another man in his lifetime.

no way should gay people be stopped from giving blood. If they want to, then let them, anyone who says yes in this poll are idiots

Dang, someone finally figured me out. Curse your newbie insight! Well, it was fun while it lasted. Bye, y'all.

...so a heterosexual couple that does engage in anal sex is probably less likely, statistically, to transmit AIDS than is a homosexual couple.

Actually, both age and 'race' are more likely to have a SIGNIFICANT effect on risk, than gender orientation. The optimal carrier of HIV (for example) would be a black male between the ages of 34 and 39.

(And, of course, lesbians have pretty much the lowest risk of sexual transmission of disease).

Anal sex is actually a more significant marker than gender orientation OR gender alone, since it is a more effective method of disease transmission.

Actually, both age and 'race' are more likely to have a SIGNIFICANT effect on risk, than gender orientation. The optimal carrier of HIV (for example) would be a black male between the ages of 34 and 39.

(And, of course, lesbians have pretty much the lowest risk of sexual transmission of disease).

Anal sex is actually a more significant marker than gender orientation OR gender alone, since it is a more effective method of disease transmission.
But what do the statistics for AIDS-positive individuals show? That's the driving force for the screening test, isn't it? Who is most likely to have AIDS?

If I were running the FDA, I might include some more risk factors for AIDS, but it seems like things are running pretty well right now. There are no widespread blood shortages, no epidemic of AIDS from transfusions, pretty good, I'd say.

What I wouldn't do is turn blood donation into a double blind test where social activists try to find out if medical scientists can discover AIDS in donated blood 100% of the time.

But what do the statistics for AIDS-positive individuals show? That's the driving force for the screening test, isn't it? Who is most likely to have AIDS?

If I were running the FDA, I might include some more risk factors for AIDS, but it seems like things are running pretty well right now. There are no widespread blood shortages, no epidemic of AIDS from transfusions, pretty good, I'd say.

What I wouldn't do is turn blood donation into a double blind test where social activists try to find out if medical scientists can discover AIDS in donated blood 100% of the time.

Men who have sex with men account for something like 44 percent of AIDS cases (in the US) and heterosexual men account for about 37 percent.

The statistical divide between orientations is tiny... but men are the big risk category.

Unfortunately, the biggest GROWTH in risk, is now heterosexual women (not surprisingly, given that homsexual men and heterosexual men are running effectively even). So a heterosexual couple that engages in 'risk' activities (like anal sex) should be the same degree of concern as a homosexual couple that does.

As I pointed out already - age is a more significant marker than orientation - almost a fifth of all HIV cases in the US are related to a 5 year span (that 34 to 39 catchment).


What it basically comes down to - is the current 'guidelines' are outdated, and possibly even dangerous. The LOWEST risk group is half of the homosexual population (women who have sex with women), and homosexual and heterosexual men are about as high a risk as one another. So - excluding homsexuals is removing an ultra low risk group, while leaving a group statisitically as risky as the other one excluded.

But what do the statistics for AIDS-positive individuals show?

The last data I saw said that the most at-risk group for infection was actually heteroseuxal black females. Does this mean that all heterosexual black women should be banned from giving blood?

That's the driving force for the screening test, isn't it? Who is most likely to have AIDS?

It is supposed to be.

If I were running the FDA, I might include some more risk factors for AIDS, but it seems like things are running pretty well right now. There are no widespread blood shortages, no epidemic of AIDS from transfusions, pretty good, I'd say.

There are blood shortages all the time.

What it basically comes down to - is the current 'guidelines' are outdated, and possibly even dangerous. The LOWEST risk group is half of the homosexual population (women who have sex with women), and homosexual and heterosexual men are about as high a risk as one another. So - excluding homsexuals is removing an ultra low risk group, while leaving a group statisitically as risky as the other one excluded.

To be clear, lesbians are allowed to give blood. There are two questions regarding sexual orientation (maybe not exact quotes, but I've heard them often enough):

1) Are you a man who has ever had sex with another man since 1977?
2) Have you ever had sex with a man who has ever had sex with another man since 1977?

Interestingly, this means that if my husband had been bi-curious and experimented with another man, I would be barred from giving blood, no matter how many HIV tests we both might have had.

blood that is donated to banks should only be acceptedif the blood is healthy. end of story

blood that is donated to banks should only be acceptedif the blood is healthy. end of story

But that is not the subject here, I gather.

As I pointed out already - age is a more significant marker than orientation - almost a fifth of all HIV cases in the US are related to a 5 year span (that 34 to 39 catchment).


What it basically comes down to - is the current 'guidelines' are outdated, and possibly even dangerous. The LOWEST risk group is half of the homosexual population (women who have sex with women), and homosexual and heterosexual men are about as high a risk as one another. So - excluding homsexuals is removing an ultra low risk group, while leaving a group statisitically as risky as the other one excluded.
Okay, there's always room to improve any process. The improvements to this (donating blood) should be deliberate and well thought through. Making improvements should be more like building a Space Shuttle than releasing a Microsoft operating system. In other words, the improvements should carry less risk than the conditions that they are intended to improve. [personal bias inserted] And after watching the government at work, I'm not sure they're capable of doing that.[/bias]

But the other part of the problem is that it's not good enough to just claim you are catching all the infected blood, one needs to maintain confidence in the blood supply. You also can't be overly restrictive and create excessive shortages. So slow and thoroughly changes that expand the pool of donors are probably the way to go, demonstrating a capability to maintain the integrity of the blood supply.

Hey :(

All due respect, how is it fair to not let gays give blood. Im not gay, but if i needed a blood transfusion, i couldnt care if he was gay, black, asian or blind as long as his blood was infection-free, because I know it will save my life, and i'd rather have that then refusing a gay's blood