Donating Blood and Homosexuality

[Will]

I'd be so angry if I was given gay blood. Makes me mad just thinking about it. I'd probably make them take it out.

[MoogleViper]

I'd be so angry if I was given gay blood. Makes me mad just thinking about it. I'd probably make them take it out.

 

By the time you realised it would have already converted you.

[ReZourceman]

I thought this was a thread about donating blood and homosexuality. My little fingers a bit fruity, and was hoping to get rid of it.

[The Mad Monkey]

I thought this was a thread about donating blood and homosexuality. My little fingers a bit fruity, and was hoping to get rid of it.

 

I'll heat up my bread knife.

[ReZourceman]

Its a real finger not a finger roll. LOLOLOLOLOL.

[Jon]

It's obviously based on risk, not the fact they don't like no fag blood. They're always desperate for people to donate blood, not to mention the activists would jump on it like a bareback if it was for discriminatory reasons.

[Sheikah]

I can't either since I am foreign.

 

So the stereotypes are true then? Aids is predominantly a gay disease and gay people get more STIs?

Yes, HIV is much more common in homosexuals than heterosexuals, at least in the more developed countries.

 

I understand this as it is a factor to reduce risk, it is not intended to discriminate or insult people in the slightest.

 

The prostitute example? Really? You can't compare the two whatsoever. If you're throwing all these examples at me, then surely you see my point? Anyone can catch HIV. So why only allow straight people to donate. The blanket system is out-dated. If I were able to prove a clean bill of health, why should that not allow me to donate blood in order to save a life?

 

While anyone can have HIV, gay people are more likely to have HIV. It's as simple as that. The NHS don't know you, that you're a nice guy nor do they know what you get up to behind closed doors, which is why they aim to eliminate risks based on the current scientific understanding. As I said, they're not trying to discriminate you in the slightest so don't feel disappointed.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Sheikah

[nightwolf]

Honestly, the rules on giving blood are a bit strange, from what I recall you also can't give blood if you've had a piercing or tattoo - but that only has a time limit.

 

Which given the state of gun piercing it's ridiculous, guns can't be cleaned and aren't anywhere near as safe as using one needle and binning it, blood splatter can easily be forced onto another person's ear, contracting anything in the other person, yet it's only given a time limit.

 

The homosexuality rule seems somewhat outdated, but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned to me recently that aids unfortunately is more common, but that shouldn't mean that every homosexual should be banned for giving blood. What if they got checked out first for example..?

 

Hmm... 0.o

[chairdriver]

It's easy, just lie.

 

If you do have HIV, they test the blood anyway, it's not even a big deal.

[Jon]

It's easy, just lie.

 

If you do have HIV, they test the blood anyway, it's not even a big deal.

 

 

There's so many things wrong with that sentence....

[Goafer]

Rather than get mad at the people who are out there every day trying to save lives, straight, gay or whatever, why not get mad at the people that have contributed to the statistics and given homosexuality a "bad name"?

 

They don't want to turn away anyone from giving blood, they need as much of it as they can get. The simple fact is that the risk is too high. It's not like they sit there and think "how can we piss off those dirty gaylords today?" They want to save lives. End of.

 

They've done the appropriate research, or at least done far more than anyone. I trust them over anyones opinion.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Goafer

[chairdriver]

Sad day when the fact that a class of people have more sex is considered conducive to a bad reputation. That's proper puritan stuff. Just highlights how sex-starved a lot of heteronormative society is.

[Goafer]

Sad day when the fact that a class of people have more sex is considered conducive to a bad reputation.

 

If that's aimed at my post, that's not what I meant by bad name. I meant the whole "homosexuals are more likely to have STDs" thing.

 

Promiscuity doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's not for me, but each to their own. I only have a problem if it leads to the spread of STDs. As long as everyone is safe, it bothers me none.

[Mr-Paul]

If you read the facts posted, anal sex transmits HIV/AIDS a lot more than vaginal/oral sex, even with condoms, which apparently are more likely to split during anal.

 

It's nothing against gay people. It's about minimising risk of infection. And even though it may be unfair if you believe yourself to be totally clean, I think they should be commended for doing all they can to stop the spread of disease.

[Sheikah]

Sad day when the fact that a class of people have more sex is considered conducive to a bad reputation. That's proper puritan stuff. Just highlights how sex-starved a lot of heteronormative society is.

Ugh, grow up.

 

The statement that seems to be circulating that gay people have more sex is not derogatory to their character, but it is a factor that increases the spread of STDs within that particular community.

 

Please stop picking fights. It's getting old.

[jayseven]

Not sure if Mr-paul's post covered it earlier as I skimmed (gay guy on telly that I want to watch :P)...

 

AIDs/HIV does not immediately show up in blood screenings so there's an increased risk with the new 10-year plan with transmitting the disease. Regardless of morality, there will likely be a rise in HIV in blood transfusions now -- albeit minute.

 

It's not meant to be any sort of vindictive assault on homosexuality - surely you can understand that the primary reason for blood-donation restrictions is a health and safety one. Surely it's in everyone's favour that HIV/AIDs transmission is reduced. You may feel like it is a slight against yourself, but it's not intended to offend you. If they hated you then they'd say "oh you're gay? Then you have to give 9 pints."

 

There are plenty of other ways for you to, y'know, do good for the world than sit there for 20 minutes bleeding.

[The Mad Monkey]

I'm betting the amount of heterosexual anal sex is much higher than the homosexual.

But that's OK, right?

[Sheikah]

It's not meant to be any sort of vindictive assault on homosexuality - surely you can understand that the primary reason for blood-donation restrictions is a health and safety one.

 

I know, it always amuses me that people without the faintest whiff of knowledge regarding HIV, specifically the properties of the virus and its mode of transmission throughout the population, can have their 'opinion' on how it's so wrong. And how medical professionals who do not discriminate gays in any other sense must of course be homophobic to the core, simply refusing to allow blood from gays out of spite and not at all due to scientific evidence, years of research and professional opinions.

 

Amusing indeed.

[Diageo]

If you're speaking sheer numbers, then maybe, but that's because there's a lot more heterosexual people.

 

I'm betting the amount of heterosexual anal sex is much higher than the homosexual.

But that's OK, right?

Response for this quote above.

[Sheikah]

I'm betting the amount of heterosexual anal sex is much higher than the homosexual.

But that's OK, right?

I shouldn't think that's likely, but that is somewhat irrelevant. Perhaps the Monkey doth frequent the porno too much?

[The Mad Monkey]

Just seems funny that the major risk is something that is practiced on both sides of the coin, but only one is penalized.

 

I shouldn't think that's likely, but that is somewhat irrelevant. Perhaps the Monkey doth frequent the porno too much?

 

Maybe you're just a bit of a prude.

[Mr-Paul]

I think everyone should go and read the stuff I quoted from the NHS website on the previous page. It pretty much answers all the objections people have to the policy on who can give blood which we seem to be going round in circles about.

 

Yes, you can disagree with it, but it is not discriminatory in any way.

 

But it seems people just want to ignore the facts, statistics, research and laws, which must clearly be within reason otherwise there would be absolute outrage in both the gay community and the media, and just scream how unfair it is.

[jayseven]

I love the phrase "practicing" sex. It's like, WHEN DOES THE REAL SEX BEGIN?!

[Sheikah]

Just seems funny that the major risk is something that is practiced on both sides of the coin, but only one is penalized.

 

It's nothing to do with performing the act itself. It's about who performs the act (ie. communities where the virus is already prevalent), and as frequency of anal sex with people more likely than average to have the virus increases, as does risk.

[The Mad Monkey]

 

Yes, you can disagree with it, but it is not discriminatory in any way.

 

If anything it isn't discriminatory enough, really they should only accept the blood of virgins, and then only when they are sacrificed on a full moon.