Oh here we go again with that old chestnut.
I think the Swedish approach is probably best, so that you just restrict all people indulging in risky sex. The point is, if gay men really want to donate, they can lie. So can other people that have a high risk of being infected, it doesn’t stop anyone, but I suppose this way, gay men would not feel victimised for being a specific minority group.
I personally still think it is too risky, considering the percentage of gay men that are unaware of their HIV status, but the ban should be expanded to cover other high risk groups.
And before some twat pipes up about the ruling being homophobic, it is not. You wouldn’t bareback a guy you didn’t know, so why would you want a blood transfusion from one?
I’d never have unprotected sex with anyone but long-term partners, male or female (even then, I would probably stick to the condoms). As such, if I wanted to donate blood, I’d lie. I see nothing immoral about that (seeing as how MSMs are only high-risk in that they tend to have unsafe sex more often), and I hope other people like me would do likewise.
Much as I would love to give blood, and am also one of those people that regularly goes for sexual health check ups who always uses condoms, I refuse to lie about being gay. Why should I?
I think the 12 month ban is an appropriate compromise. If (and I hope it never happens) I ever have to receive blood I don’t care if the donor is gay, straight, black, white or even ginger, so long as they are SAFE. The ban should apply to EVERYONE. You cannot donate blood if you have had unprotected sex with a new partner in the last 12 months.
IMHO the fact that HIV was missed for a while in donors gave a convenient ‘medical’ excuse for people who didn’t want pink blood because they thought it would make them gay, just as some people refused organ transplants from people from a different ethnic background in the dim and distant past.
Time to move out of the dark ages, people. There is a blood shortage, fact, so why not get off the high horse and take advantage of what is a very altruistic section of the community?
For the record: I would love to give blood, but I can’t. Not because of the ban, but because I am s**t-scared of needles.
Dionysian: I am diabetic and have to jab myself 3 or 4 times a day, and give a blood sample every 6 weeks or so. I’m not worried about needles, but I am very squeamish. I find the best way to get around it is get into a conversation with phlebotomist, chat away and stare out of the window so you don’t look at your arm.
I gave blood many times, but on my last occasion they rested the clammy, warm tube on my bare arm, at which point I flaked out like a big queen. I never did it again after that.
I was a donor for years and years despite being gay. However, I was sexually inactive (long story) since before the AIDS epidemic started in the early 80s but have had annual sexual screenings anyway, so I felt my donation was safe enough to lie about my sexuality – I’ve always felt the need for blood was too great. Four years ago I stepped up to donating platelets.
I resumed a sexually active lifestyle about 18 months ago and whilst I’d never participate in bareback sex either topping or bottoming (I’m a textbook versatile) I do tend to give a lot of BJs to random strangers and although the risks are much smaller, they are there, so I took myself off the donor list.
Since then, in last month’s sexual health screening, I tested positive for syphilis – contracted no longer than 3 weeks before – and while I’ve been treated and I’m clean again, I’ll carry the antibodies forever now so whatever happens, I’m off the donor list for life.
I think Dick’s comment is a warning to us all, and I for one appreciate his candidness. I demonstrates that nobody is infallible, and that gay sex carries a far higher risk. I know of someone that always practised safer sex, but caught HIV through oral sex because he had a gum infection. It is a honourable thing to donate blood, but with statistics like this, at what cost?
I doubt very much that 3 in 4 gay men carry organ donor cards, which we are not excluded from doing.
I used to give Blood once a year until I got Hepatitis. Hep. stays in the Blood for the rest of your days so Blood giving is a no-no after that.
“a 12-month ban would instead be implemented in March for anyone having “risky” sex, which includes gay sex.”
Gay sex is risky because it’s gay sex?
No that’s not discrimination, oh no, not a jot. Straight sex is clean and natural but gay sex is risky.
Carvero: No, gay sex is risky sex because anal sex is far more likely to transmit the HIV virus, and statistically, gay men have more sexual partners than straight people.
That is not discrimination, it’s common sense.
it is discrimination as there are people who din’t sleep around for example
Chester: It’s unfortunate. However you construct a law, there are those that are not going to fit the general demographic and fall between two stools. So which would you prefer, banning anyone with a potential risk, or letting everyone in and almost certainly infecting the blood stocks? Or would you rather a child contract HIV just so your rights as a gay man are not impinged?
The trouble with being Gay is – I can resist anything except temtation!
RobN, you are so sexy when your being technical!!!…Love you..Brian The Lion…Grrrr!!
how about being more accurate for example? How about acknowledging that stereotypes are BS?
RobN that’s BS, you can’t pass a law or make rules based on generalisation, if you did we’d lock up every brown person for being a terrorist and every black person for being a criminal.
It’s not justice in any sense of the word, it’s discrimination, treating people based on the worst assumptions instead of treating people like individual humans.
I feel sorry for you that you rationalise this discrimination, you must be very damaged.
There is nothing wrong or damaged abou RobN. He is entitled to his point of view how ever distasteful to anyone else
Chester: All stereotypes are based on generalisation, but they are usually based on common truths. Like I said, laws often fall between two stools, a classic situation was a few years back over the age of consent. Some people were mature, and could handle sex at 14, whereas there are also 18yo’s that are immature and need protection. One can’t make a law where ‘one size fit’s all’ so you have to try to get it to accommodate the majority.
Carvero: You are a f_kwit. If you are caught creeping about someone’s garden with a crowbar, the police can nick you for “going equipped to commit a crime”. An assumption has been drawn, but few people can claim to be inspecting manhole covers at 1 ‘o’ clock in the morning. Most laws encompass a level of assumption based on statistical evidence and previous similar situations.
Civil law is based entirely on precedent.
Brian (the lion): Grrr.