Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Australian blood donation rules ‘discriminatory’, activist says

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Yeah theres a flaw in this specific argument. There are no figures for the % risk for gay men vs. people with tattoos/piercings; I’m guessing because the numbers are nowhere near comparable.

  2. Scott of Sydney 9 Jun 2010, 11:56pm

    You two need to get a life. Mr Croome is commenting on the fact of review of the ban.
    The facts of the risks of possible infection through anal intercourse (remember heterosexuals practise that too) and piercings and tattoos are part of any such review.
    Therefore to exclude Anal Sex as part of that study is to thus admit it is homophobia and not medical safety being considered.

  3. Fine. Just don’t whinge at me that there is not enough blood donation. I am monogomous with my partner and we don’t and never will have HIV. A straight person who sleeps around has more chance of getting a blood borne infection then me because I don’t sleep around. Neither does my partner. But whatever – at least I don’t have to feel guilty for not regularly visiting the blood bank since it insists on this discrimination!

  4. Yet another moaning old queen that would rather have his gay rights than reduce the not insignificant risk of an innocent person contracting an incurable and potentially terminal infection, just it makes them feel good. Pathetic.

  5. Scott (2) if the risk of contracting a disease through needle use has recently been found to be less than previously thought, whilst the risk from gay sex has remained at a constant, they would review the piercing ban and not the gay sex ban. I think the blanket ban on men who sleep with men is poorly thought out, but this particular argument is weak.

  6. Spook, your post has absolutely no logic.

    By your post implications, we should just ban blood donations all together- since they are all potentially risky, one way or another.

    One of my teachers suffered a seizure and black out when a nurse incorrectly inserted a needle while taking blood, causing it to pool into his arm and his blood to go deathly low. Wasn’t gay either, so don’t say “gay people have seizures when they donate blood!”.

    Also, the fastest growing group with HIV/AIDS is African Americans (in the USA anyways), so should we just do a blanketing ban on them?
    Heterosexual women are also ridden with nasty HIV/AIDS, compared to lesbians with almost non-existant transmission rates, so should we ban all straight women from donating (y’know, since we’re fine with blanket banning gay men)?
    Good luck trying to get those to hold up, since you’re going to find people don’t like you and they don’t mind discriminating against your blood while letting higher risk groups in.

    Also, since you’re banned from donating, doesn’t that mean all infections via blood are straight peoples fault and that they should be banned too?
    Y’know, cause statistically saying… if gay men can’t donate blood, and they with Les and bi are only 10% of the population, then I’m pretty sure the growing rate of HIV/AIDS can’t be blamed on 10% of the world.
    (Unless you’re religious, then that makes total sense that gays are bringing the end of the world with their God wrath disease).

    Also, needle sharers are not dangerous? People that reuse needles illegally for tattooing are covered by that, y’know.
    The article is about the injustice of the 6 month ban for needle sharers, but gay men have to wait 12 months. It is discriminatory, unless AIDS/HIV takes longer to be screened for when administered via gay sex…?

    P.S. I am pretty sure that someone would rather be alive with HIV/AIDS than dead, from what people have told me. Yes, straight people *gasp*.

  7. Zoek: “I am pretty sure that someone would rather be alive with HIV/AIDS than dead, from what people have told me.”

    Since when did someone ever die through lack of a blood donation? You are talking complete bollocks. You have a typically blinkered lefty attitude. Eliminating high risk groups from donation *IS* part of the screening process.

    Why is it gay people are just totally in denial about what the rest of their “community” are up to? Whether you like it or not, gay men are more likely to be HIV+ than any other group in first world countries. That is not conjecture, supposition or guesswork. It is a FACT. Live with it.

    The fact that gay men are a relatively small group means that the elimination of those people from donation makes a significant difference. Lack of gay donated blood will not affect the blood banks by any great amount, but were it allowed, the risk would be greatly increased. Would you like to be the one to tell a pregnant mother that her child is HIV+. I bet you would be the first one to rush out and sue the health authority’s arse off because you had become infected.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all