Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

US senators call to end gay blood ban

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Why not just change the law to keep blood in the freezer for 3 months before it’s used?
    It could be phased in over time and then everyone is treated fairly and the window where HIV cant be detected is eliminated
    A simple change and fair for everyone =]

  2. Why not just change the law to keep blood in the freezer for 3 months before it’s used?
    It could be phased in over time and then everyone is treated fairly and the window where HIV cant be detected is eliminated
    A simple change and fair for everyone =]

  3. Here we go yet again with this old chestnut. To reiterate:

    1. Gay men are a high risk category. That is a FACT even if you personally have the sexual proclivities of Enid Blyton’s tortoise.

    2. Other people such as sub-Saharan Africans and many Asians are also high risk but currently are not restricted.

    3. Screening is NOT foolproof.

    There is a risk entailed, and rather than endangering innocent people in order to be politically correct, I feel that until better screening is available, blood donation should be carefully vetted. THIS IS NOT HOMOPHOBIA, IT IS COMMON SENSE.

    You would not have unprotected sex with most gay men, so why would you accept donated blood from them?
    The same precept applies.

  4. It doesn’t matter if screening is foolproof or not, after the window of opportunity if the blood is screened then it eliminates a great percentage of any risk for everyone

    At the end of the day allowing screened gay blood saves more lives than a shortage of blood from straight people who may or may not be more irresponsible with their sexual health than some gay people

  5. Dave North 6 Mar 2010, 12:15am

    1. Gay men are a high risk category. That is a FACT even if you personally have the sexual proclivities of Enid Blyton’s tortoise.

    Utter tosh.

    Women seem to have just about every infection going, given the never ending advertising selling them something to clean up itches and F knows what else with their plumbing.

    Thrush, Candida etc etc.

    Being a gay man that does not partake of anal sex, and with the same partner for the past 25 years, my reproductive organs are a damn site cleaner and safer than some silly wee diseased girl that this tax paid service allows to proffer blood but disallows me purely on ignorant bias.

  6. Tigra: So after the same “window of opportunity”, you would be willing to have unsafe sex with someone, would you?

    Dave North: Stop showing your ignorance. Thrush/Candida, (they are the same thing), are not transmissible through blood transfusions, and even if they were that can be treated with antibiotics. It is a yeast infection, you twat, not a f_cking virus. So much for public awareness of STD’s.

  7. Dave North 6 Mar 2010, 12:36am

    What is your job RobN.

    You continually infest this forum berating everyone with your opinions but never lat anyone know either your sexuality or function?

    Please expand.

  8. Dave North 6 Mar 2010, 2:09am

    My ignorance is as a Consultant Heart Surgeon at a UK childrens hospital for the past 26 years.

    Whats yours?

    Pray explain what good your sorry existence has ever done.

    Do not dare for an instant to slag me off with your self hatred of your own gay state.

    Please get some treatment.

  9. Jean-Paul Bentham 6 Mar 2010, 4:12am

    Dr. North:

    Enchanté!

    You would be in favor of ending the ban, then? So that you could give blood? And save more lives.

    I’m curious as to what you think about Tigra 07’s comment at post 1.

  10. David in Indy 6 Mar 2010, 8:21am

    I’ll never forget when I tried donating blood at the American Red Cross just after 9/11. It didn’t seem like they were screening anyone that day, but they pulled me aside and asked if I was gay. When I told them “yes” they informed me I was not allowed to donate and turned me away. Not only was it highly embarrassing, it was very hurtful. I was only trying to help.

    They need to put a stop to this! My blood is clean! If they don’t want our blood then they should stop bitching about the shortages.

  11. Dave North: “My ignorance is as a Consultant Heart Surgeon at a UK childrens hospital for the past 26 years.”

    Well in which case, that seriously worries me that you were unaware what Candida actually is. Did you not learn basic med school? Or didn’t they have ‘VD’ back then?

    Incidentally, my background is irrelevant, but for your information, I am gay, in a CP and a director of a media design company.

  12. “Tigra: So after the same “window of opportunity”, you would be willing to have unsafe sex with someone, would you?”
    No, theres more to unsafe sex than just knowing a partner is clean, trust plays a part, just as instinct
    Gay people arent the only ones with HIV so banning them makes no sense

    Anyway, didnt we recently hear of a gay mans mother dying because he couldnt give her blood and there was a shortage of her blood type?
    Do you agree with that RobN?

  13. “Dave North: “My ignorance is as a Consultant Heart Surgeon at a UK childrens hospital for the past 26 years.””
    Thats good justification for a biggoted view isn’t it
    Just the same logic as the soldiers in America protesting about gay people being openly gay on tour

    You must be pretty bitter to work in a childrens hospital and not want to help them get better

  14. Tigra: “No, theres more to unsafe sex than just knowing a partner is clean, trust plays a part, just as instinct.”

    Ah right. I see!!. So what you are saying is the phlebotomists taking these donations should trust people more, and if he looks like a nice bloke, he’s bound to be HIV-.

    You really do spout some crap.

    “Anyway, didnt we recently hear of a gay mans mother dying because he couldnt give her blood and there was a shortage of her blood type?”

    Yes, I saw it, and read it properly; don’t twist the story to fit the criteria. She did not die because he didn’t donate (he didn’t even know if he was the same blood group) – She got a transfusion from someone else and still died.

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/us-senators-call-to-end-gay-blood-ban

    I fully understand that gay men wish to contribute, but it does not detract from the fact that we are amongst a statistically high-risk demographic, and that has not changed since the early ’80’s. Equally though, many Africans and Asians should also be prevented for the same reason.

    As I said in a previous post, are you willing to risk infecting a child with a terminal disease just so you get your “gay rights”?
    Seems it’s just the usual suspects with their “Me, me, me!” gay perspective.

  15. The Big Yin 7 Mar 2010, 4:56am

    so you suddenly realise you’re gay, than *BANG* you have AIDS. i dont f***ing think so. a straight guy can do bb anal with 1000 girls and is still not a high risk category while a gay man stays a virgin and is high risk?

  16. When did i say attractive guys have HIV?
    And you say i spout some crap?
    If i twist everything you say aswell i can actually make sense of the crap you spout RobN

    OK ill give you the story of the guys mother who died
    …but he wanted to donate, treat him as a perfect example
    His mom died and now he sees how donating can help, with the choice he would surely now be a regular donor
    His blood could get kept on ice for 3 months and then used
    “many Africans and Asians should also be prevented for the same reason. ”
    But they arent are they?
    See that would be racist and the government can only justify picking on minorities

    Rather than tar us all with the same brush RobN use your f++kin brain
    You say you worked at a hospital, so if you really cared you would be suggesting ways the system could be reformed and improved rather than picking on a minority for wanting to donate blood and help others

  17. “As I said in a previous post, are you willing to risk infecting a child with a terminal disease just so you get your “gay rights”?
    Seems it’s just the usual suspects with their “Me, me, me!” gay perspective. ”
    Yes, unless you propose we ban africans and asians so that it is actually about protecting people, rather than discriminating against a minority
    Tell me RobN, if we, africans and asians are high risk, why are only gay people banned from donating blood?
    It’s just a homophobic law, not a justified one

    “The average window period with antibody tests is 22 days. Antigen testing cuts the window period to approximately 16 days and NAT further reduces this period to 12 days.”
    Other than that, current screening methods are 99.99% accurate, meaning you are as likely to get run over today as you are of infecting someone with your blood after it is screened

  18. Tigra: You *ARE* twisting words. You stated “didnt we recently hear of a gay mans mother dying because he couldnt give her blood and there was a shortage of her blood type?”

    That says to me the woman DIED because her son could not donate blood, which is patently UNTRUE.

    “Tell me RobN, if we, africans and asians are high risk, why are only gay people banned from donating blood? It’s just a homophobic law, not a justified one.”

    But in the previous breath you say:
    “See that would be racist and the government can only justify picking on minorities”

    You can’t even define a coherent line of argument. So you are saying it is homophobic to pick on just gay men, but if they were to expand to fit African and Asians, then it would be racist. You can’t win with your bizarre logic.

    The fact these people are high risk is not a matter of them being minorities, it is the FACT that they pose a far higher risk than the average person, and someone has to not only draw a line somewhere, but also define that line. Another group that is already banned are intravenous drug users; Or would you think this might also be a bigoted attempt to disenfranchise a minority group? A bit “Junkieist”, possibly?

    I recognise that screening methods have improved, yet there are still many HIV+ people alive today, and many more that aren’t, due to receiving infected blood donations. One cannot blame the donors for this, but it demonstrates that these things happen, and if it means picking on ‘perceived minorities’ as you see it, in order to save peoples lives, then yes, we should pick on them.
    To quote a bit of Star Trek – “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.’

    If you cannot agree to that, you are even more selfish than I took you for.

  19. It is homophobic scientifically, I don’t know where the supporting-this-ban lot get their counter ideas. Also, this is about the USA (where I live) ban, so I know what it is like. I am a lesbian, but my friend is a gay guy. He gets to go with school with me, knowing that each twice yearly that the blood drive comes here they will tell him NO simply for being gay guy. Fancy a bunch of people telling you that you might as well have HIV/AIDs because you’re a gay male, one who isn’t even out of high school yet.
    The rule barring gay men (it does not bar gay women, I believe) was made during the height of the Gay / AIDs scare. A rule thought out when it was believed that AIDs was a “gay disease”- imagine their surprise today when some of the straightest people on earth are living with it too.
    You do all realize that both the HIV/AIDs travel ban, as well as this law, were made because no one knew how it was spread, correct?
    Now that we have a better understanding of this virus, as well as better screening technology in general, it is only common sense to remove the rule. We have better technology, higher population and the correlation is that we have a lower blood resovoir. It is about time we stepped up to the plate and removed it, if not for the guarenteed life saving than for scientific equality if so be it.
    Some of you argue that the gay man barred from donating blood, to his mother potentially, did not actually save a life- where do you get this idea? If he had been allowed to donate, even if it didn’t match his mother’s blood, it would of helped save a life eventually.
    Proud to say I’m a minor and I know this much.

  20. To me it would make more sense to restrict anyone who has had more than x number of sexual partners. Prostitutes are banned from donating blood, presumably because they are having sex with a large number of people whose sexual history is unknown. How is this any different, risk wise, from someone who goes out and has one night stands with people they dont know?

  21. AKyth, itd luck tohugh isnt it that some people can have unprotected sex once and end up with HIV and some people who sleep around continually without protection never get it
    Zoe is right, it needs to be repealled
    There is no justification for this law anymore, it encourages homophobia and segregation in society

  22. Like others, I have been in a very long term monogamous relationship which blossomed into marriage (I refuse to use the grubby term CP). I have never (ever) indulged in the high risk practices which increase the chances of becoming HIV+. My blood perfectly safe. It is an insult and bigotry that there is a blanket ban on gay men giving blood: it is deeply insulting and irrational to boot.

  23. Why do people continue to use these straw man arguments all the time? Like I stated in (3) just because YOU may not fit the case, it does not detract from the final outcome. With any law, their are going to be exceptions to the rule, and yes, I am sure there are many out there that live the lives of saints, but there are many more that don’t.

    For example, look at car insurance companies, they base their premiums on the general trends, which is why a 17yo driver is going to pay 10 times more for car insurance than a 50yo with 20 years no claims. That is not to say ALL 17yo’s scream around town smashing into lamposts all day, but the trend indicates their demographic is much more likely to have an accident than someone older and more experienced.

    It is common knowledge that a large proportion of HIV infected people don’t even know they are infected, so there are so many unknowns and variable, it is grossly irresponsible to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I do say though that equally some of the high risk immigrant donors should also be banned, this is neither a sexuality or a race issue, it is simply a risk management initiative.

  24. I think the law in England also excludes people from sub-saharan Africa, as well as those who have had sex with proplr from sub-saharan Africa…

  25. Daniel Pitt 8 Mar 2010, 12:24pm

    About time as well! Now if only we Brits could do the same.

  26. High risk categories have no place in blood donations
    Its a stupid outdated law and the benefits far outweigh the risks of more blood in the system
    Especially since blood screening is now 99.99% accurate
    If this was really about just Aids and not bullying then Asians and Africans would be barred from donating aswell

  27. Tigra: “If this was really about just Aids and not bullying then Asians and Africans would be barred from donating as well”

    Nah, it’s just there’s a lot more of them than us, and they would shout a lot louder complaints than even you.

    “High risk categories have no place in blood donations”
    Absolutely correct. We are one of them. Live with it.

  28. They are still minorities in America and the UK and can still donate blood RobN
    It is purely discrimination, i dont see why you cant just admit it when the evidence is overwhelming

  29. Tigra 07 “The evidence is overwhelming.”

    Firstly, I have seen none. Secondly, nobody in 60 years UK has ever died through lack of donor blood being available. Many have ultimately died through infected blood. One death is too many when it can actively be prevented.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all