Should MSMs be able to give blood

Yes, yes, yes.

I think the site End the Ban - Home explains pretty well.

 

All donations get tested anyway (at least they do here) so banning us is just plain old discrimination.

 

This^

If donated blood gets tested anyway, why would you restrict a significant potential blood-donating segment of the population? Just doesn't make sense to me. Its always ackward because whenever I go with my friend (who donates blood every 8 months or so) to the clinic, people sometimes ask if I ever would donate blood and every time I say I am not allowed to by law. They always feel ackward after I answer...

 

I was ambivalent about the gay donor ban until I realized that there would be a nuclear fucking meltdown if Black individuals or the impoverished, with unfortunately comparable numbers of HIV infection, were ever prohibited from donating. Gays are an easier target.

Basically, this proves that the ban is simply a kneejerk 1980s-era move that they forgot to rescind. And when you have the highest risk group combined with an idiotic public who views being gay as a choice, well, that just creates all sorts of problems. Also, as we all know, being viewed as sexually active automatically invalidates any dignity you might have.

 

I think there should be the same restrictions as there are for men who have sex with women.

 

Yes, because some of us are probably lying anyway.

 

Absolutely. Personally, I can't donate blood because I have a blood disorder. I totally understand the reasons for that, and would never lie about it because I would never want to jeopardize a fellow human being's health. I think most people are like that. If they know they have a medical issue, they aren't going to knowingly donate and risk harming another person.

If all donated blood is tested anyway, then I think everybody who is healthy should be able to give. If necessary, the tests should become more stringent, but an entire group of willing donors should not have a blanket ban.

 

Why is it that most people think the only reason aids exists is because of gay men, if I'm not mistaken straight men and woman have gotten aids, and tons of people have gotten HIV other ways like sharing needles , this whole blaming the gays for aids really pisses me off. And yes everyone should be allowed to donate blood, if its all tested why is this a big deal why a ban?

 

The point is that monogamous MSM people who have sex are now being barred from having sex, whereas heterosexual people who have lots of sex, even unprotected, face no such restrictions purely on the basis of who they have sex with. While their risk is higher.

 

In the UK the law has changed, its no longer a life-time ban. Its only a ban if you have had gay sex within the past year...because after a year aids/HIV just disappears...right? I know that the bans are in place to protect people, but ffs, we don't automatically get aids once you realise you're gay.

 

The logic at work there is that you don't realise you have HIV right away after contracting it - if they make you wait a year since you last had a chance of contracting it then there's no risk of you having HIV, not realising, and donating thinking you are safe.

Of course this ignores the fact that: 1. everyone is at risk of HIV from sex, not just gay men; and 2., the donations are screened so they'll pick up HIV regardless of how long ago it was contracted (possible exceptions in contractions that were only within the last two weeks or so).

 

The problem is that the HIV virus is most active when you're just infected with it, and that is exactly the time when it can't be detected by the test they use to test the donor blood.
Right now that happens very very rarely, but if men who have sex with men will be allowed to give blood, it will likely happen ten times more often.

I read an interview on this with someone from the blood bank, who explicitly stated he isn't homophobic at all, but that it is purely a safety measure. It's terrible that HIV is more common in gay men than in straight men, but it is sadly a fact, not something made up. Just like the fact that HIV can't be detected in those first -- very active -- three months.

I'd be all for some kind of system that would select blood donors based on risky behavior, but just saying all gay men can donate would -- again, sadly -- just be unsafer than letting just straight men donate.

I'm not saying I'm for or against it, because having had gay sex myself I'd feel really insulted if I couldn't donate blood anymore (on a side note, in the Netherlands, you can donate, regardless of your sexuality), but I do acknowledge that the statistics show it would increase the chances of someone getting infected with HIV through blood donations.

---------- Post added 14th Nov 2012 at 04:58 AM ----------

Your point nr. 1: True, but we can't ignore the fact, like I said above, that HIV is about ten times (depending on the country/city) more likely to be found in gay men. This is also the reason a lot of straight couples ditch condoms after a while, yet gay men are encouraged to keep using them no matter what.
Point nr. 2: No, the places I know use the usual test that only detects HIV after three months.

But yeah, like I said, I think some kind of risky behavior/when was the last time you had any kind of sex might be a good way of going about it.

 

re point 2: according to this website 100% of US blood donations since 2011 have been screened using HIV nucleic acid testing, which has a 95% detection rate after 17 days.
It may not be tested immediately upon or shortly after donation, but it would be tested at some point before it was used.
(The same test is used in other countries, too, although perhaps not for 100% of donations)

 

Oh, I don't know anything about the US, sorry should've probably been more clear about that. I was talking about the ones in the Netherlands; they use the regular testing method. The nucleic acid testing is most certainly a much better way of making sure the blood is clean.

 

The thing is people are individuals, not statistics.
There is no, I repeat no scientific study that has found a causal relationship between either homosexuality or MSM intercourse that directly causes HIV or aids.
It's all about lack of monogamy and safe sex.

 

No, since MSM ≠ inherantly unsafe sex and certainty of HIV. Although HIV can be transmitted though gay sex, it can also be transmitted through safe sex. With this in mind and how it can be hard to detect the virus for a while after contraction, it'd surely be better to ban people who have had sex within the last 6 months or year from donating. 46% of black MSM have HIV while only 21% of white ones do (from Wikipedia), yet an effort to only ban black MSM would be met with outrage, as someone else already said in a different way.

 

I don't think that they should differ between homosexuals and straight people, but people who have a lot of unprotected sex as they are all in danger of having HIV. It would be more fair to everyone and probably safer.

 

I don't really get what you're saying with this. HIV is significantly more common in gay men than it is in straight men, and we all know the highest risk of contracting HIV is through anal sex. Right?
I mean I guess you're saying MSM intercourse doesn't necessarily have to lead to HIV, which, obviously, is true. But it is also true that anal sex is a very high risk activity, and that HIV transmission through anal sex is pretty common.

Yes, it is indeed. In gay as well as straight people. Still not sure what you're trying to say with that. Yes, it is about a lack of monogamy and about shitty safe sex practices, but that doesn't take away the fact that it does happen. And because, like I said, 1. gay men are more likely to have HIV to start with, and 2. anal sex is a high risk activity, sadly we are more likely to get it.

I guess that you mean that we should look at the individual person, in which case: I agree. If you know for sure you haven't engaged in risky behavior over the last, say, 6 months, and/or you're sure you've been safe, then yes, I absolutely agree, you should be able to donate.