If you had reasonable grounds to believe you won't cause any harm? Particularly related to the MSM rules, but others as well. For instance, if you'd had sex with a guy (and you're a guy) within the banned period, but after the period when tests are supposed to pick up HIV? Or if you were in a monogamous relationship with someone you trusted not to cheat on you?
Yes. It's an unjust rule, and Thoreau, Ghandi, and MLK Jr. would have us disobey unjust rules in the name of good. Gay blood will still save lives, and contrary to popular belief, it is still red, not rainbow.
No i wouldnt, there are reasons for the rule, and i wouldnt want to be responsible if my actions impacted on others. I also wouldnt want homophobes to reject blood because gay people could have donated it, id rather leave it be. I am going to give blood though, i havent ever slept with a guy so i still qualify
The "reasons" are absurd, invented misconceptions about gays and how filthy the lifestyle is. They think gay sex is unacceptably more gross and dangerous than straight sex, despite the fact that the risks are about the same.
The rules are there for a reason. Its just that the reason is homophobic. You're considering the possible harm that donating blood can cause, but you're not considering the good you could do. Donating blood saves lives. Furthermore, blood is screened, so you wouldn't actually be risking the transmission of STDs. The fact is, gay blood donors could save lives. I think making sure that donors are aware of the things that increase their risk of having HIV, and are asked to behave responsibly, would be a much better policy, given that the intent behind donation is to save lives, and thus, anyone wanting to save lives is not going to want to pass on an STD. In the absence of such a policy, I think its perfectly acceptable to donate anyway. In other words, your decision not to donate is impacting others, just as your decision to donate would be. The idea that a homophobe could reject blood because it might have been donated by a gay person is ridiculous. Firstly, such accommodations only serve to reinforce the idea that such attitudes are acceptable, and secondly, the issue in question was not about legalising MSM donations, it was about donating regardless of regulations, meaning that there shouldn't be a shift in the aforementioned homophobe's beliefs about the purity of the blood he's being given. Its also his choice; if he wants to risk his life for prejudice, who am I to stop him? If we care so much about the opinions of bigots, perhaps only white people should donate, or maybe only men. So yeah, I think responsible donation is a good thing, regardless of the regulations. P.S, I honestly mean no offence to you personally. I'm aware that a long and passionate defence of an opinion opposed to yours can seem like an attack, but it isn't intended that way. I really care about this stuff.
No, because the rule is not rational. Still, I would make efforts to be sure that my blood were safe. For example, if I were to have a one night stand (and you can bet I plan on doing so), I'd use all the safer sex precautions, and then I'd wait the three months you're supposed to for the virus, if present, to become detectable, and then do the blood test. If it came up negative, I'd donate blood, and I'd lie on the questionnaire, because the questionnaire is irrational. But this is only if I were to cease all sexual activity for the requisite period of time and retest negative.
Don't worry, i reckon im quite outspoken in LGBT terms on this. Your points are logical The rules in scotland are tht if a man has sex with a man he cant donate blood for 12 months. When the rules changed it was cited that a higher proportion of gay men, in scotland at least, have HIV and hepatitis, for which 12 months is needed to ensure that the blood is safe. Statistics were produced at the time to back this up, cant find them right now however, which leads me to trust that the regulations are there for a reason and worth adhering too. You can argue that straight people are just as prone to HIV but proportionally less straight men have the virus.
Yeah, the rules are the same here. Firstly, though, the period between when you had sex and the time it becomes detectable is three months. You should be safe after a three month period of abstinence and a test or two, meaning you have a whole nine months more in which to donate. Second, while it is definitely true that there is an increased proportion of gay men who have HIV, that does not automatically mean that all sex is equally likely to give you HIV. If you're in a monogamous relationship, and you've both been tested, you are extremely unlikely to be HIV positive. Yes, sometimes people cheat, but the same can be said for heterosexual relationships, and I'd argue that the benefits of donating in that situation outweigh the possible negatives.
This is such a stupid regulation. I can understand the argument for it for when it was made.. but now? Regardless of whether or not you've slept with someone, or if you're a virgin, straight, lesbian, or gay - and also regardless of what you put on your paper... the blood centers are legally required to test the blood that's donated for any transmittable diseases. If they find something, they're also required to give you a call and inform you. Is it okay to break the rules though? You can actually be sued and have to pay a huge fine if you're found to have falsified information. :/
I tend to go along with the official view of the Terrence Higgins Association; I would prefer the same regulations for all, however I do believe that at present the focus should not be on the fact gay blood saves lives but on working towards educating and supporting the work of those who are seeking to bring down the rate of HIV in gay men as a whole. Other groups deemed to be at risk also have set deferral times, and it's there based on statistics and precautionary measures designed to minimise the risks as far as possible (providing individuals are being honest about their sexual activities). All it takes is one unfortunate event before they manage to screen the blood, or one person under the belief that they're fine, and you'll have failed your precautionary measures and everyone and their dog will be hounding you for being so lax in you safety measures; it's happened before, it'll happen again, but they want to stay on the right side of statistics until the risk within the gay community is as low as it is in other groups. It actually is slightly more complicated than simply screening the blood or actively discriminating against gay men; they do review the HIV statistics and take into consideration significant changes, which is why there are rules in place regarding the potential risks involved in blood donations of far more people than just gay men. With that said the current system isn't exactly foolproof, there's absolutely nothing stopping people from omitting certain bits of information and giving blood anyway. If people are aware enough to monitor their own sexual health (particularly in regards to HIV and the like) then good on them for doing so and being a responsible blood donor. Re testing: it's only effective if the virus is not in the early stages, so if someone were not to wait the appropriate length of time the screening would not pick it up; the risk is that in these scenarios it would not be picked up until after it had already been used, which I believe happened pre-2003? Either way it can end up being a very messy situation. 12 months is a precautionary time period, and they have to edge towards the edge of ridiculous caution just in case something does go wrong and they can hold up their hands and say that they did everything that was reasonably practicable to minimise the risk of it happening in the first place.
Yes, particularly if it were a close family member. I'm not a promiscuous person (I've never even slept with anyone), so I don't see why being gay should prevent me from donating blood. On another note, I shouldn't have to lie about my sexuality...
I have blood type AB, so the only person I can give to are other AB people. I'm also very scared of needles so I will probably never donate blood (might sound selfish, but I'm very scared of needles). The rule is very unjust though, and I would break it if I wanted to donate.
Yes, it's none of their business if I had sex with a dude. They don't ban straight men who have sex with women.
Yeah. I intend to lie about it after I've started having sex, when I'm old enough to donate blood. Of course, it might be more difficult keeping me from fainting when the needle goes in, and I can see the blood go out *shivers. Anyway, the rule is unfair, and a part of the whole idea that our relationships are dirty and unacceptable.
