Here we go again with this old chestnut.
Would YOU have unprotected sex with someone just because he says he has “been in a stable, monogamous relationship for at least one year?” Would you be willing to potentially state your life on that statement? No. So why should anyone else be expected to accept pottentially infected blood?
I know, it can be perceived as a homophobic directive, but i think it sensible. Gay men are a high risk group, as are many others such as sub-Saharan Africans and many Asians. It’s not a matter of picking on people that are high risk, but rather the opposite, allowing those deemed specifically low risk.
Until screening can be guaranteed to eliminate HIV, these limitations have to remain. Personally, I would much rather see a bunch of queens moaning about their rights than some kid dying of AIDS just because they were too selfish to see the ramifications.
I think that you will find that over 50% of new HIV infections are women and that gay men practice safe sex much more commonly than heterosexuals
Are Sub-Saharan Africans as a group excluded from blood donation? Are some Asians as a group excluded from blood donation? Why are gays !!!!!!
Wim – the increased risk of HIV infection is weighed up against the lack of blood from ethnic minorities, who tend to have rarer blood types and are therefore more desirable as donors. But these groups still have to wait a year after having been in high-risk areas before giving blood – same goes for any white heterosexual British person who goes travelling to these areas.
I have to say I agree with Rob N, at the very least with respect to who’s rights are greater in this scenario – we all have the potential to need a blood transfusion and I think we can all agree that we have the right to ensuring that it is safe to do so. Donating blood is not a right, it is a civic duty and while I am now more open to the idea of gay and bisexual men being allowed to donate, I still feel it is NOT an inalienable right we should all be clamouring for.
It’s all very well saying that blood is tested for blood borne viruses, but part of the screening process is reducing the potential for blood to test positive in the first place. The biggest issue for me is that the vast majority of sexual transmission of HIV *within the UK* is, after decades of safer sex intervention, is still between gay and bisexual men – and increasingly, among younger men. Surely we should be far more outraged about that?
How about we totally ban all blood donations for everyone and that will solve the problem!
In America, blacks have the higher numbers of HIV infection than gay/bi men. Yet, black Americans have never been banned from donating blood and to even suggest it brings cries of racism. The double standard speaks loudly and clearly as to the origins and motivations of these policies. They are not good science. They are homophobia.
The way (how risky) I live my life, should determine if I can donate.
Not the FACT, that I am gay, should determine that I may not donate. I may not ever.
All gays are lifelong excluded.
There is no lifelong exclusion for all sub-Saharan Africans. There is no lifelong exclusion for all of some Asians.
To my opinion are gays excluded out of ease-loving = discrimination.
all blood donated has to be analyzed, doesn’t matter who has donated it, I really feel at risk to catch something if I get a blood transfusion in this country. If gay are banned to do it, how do they know the straight people donating have a safe sex life?!! I used to donate in Spain but here I can’t because I’m gay, why? Don’t they analyze the blood before a transfusion?!!
“Gay men are being signaled out again, Funny that Lesbians are free to donate! What a crazy world.