Reader comments · Canada lifts lifetime ban on gay men giving blood, but they can only donate if celibate for five years · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Canada lifts lifetime ban on gay men giving blood, but they can only donate if celibate for five years

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I remember being refused the chance to give blood in the UK because I was honest about my sexuality.
    The person next to me, who I knew and was extremely promiscuous, was not honest and was allowed to give blood.
    This whole anti gays giving blood in the same way as heterosexuals can is utter nonsense.

  2. Why can’t it be for gay men who are in a monogamous relationship? You don’t get AIDS from gay sex. You get AIDS from promiscuous behavior. These rules only emphasize discrimination.

    1. No, you get HIV from unprotected sex with an infected person. And the rates are 1 in 8 in London gay men are positive, far higher than in straight people so you have far higher chance of catching if if you are having sex with gay men than other groups. We need to deal with it!

      1. Midnighter 22 May 2013, 7:43pm

        You say “no” as if Kris is wrong – yet none of your response has any bearing on the blood donation policy as I explained in my reply to you below.

  3. Actually, Kris, gay sex is the way nearly half of all people in the UK with HIV have caught it. We need to stop going on about how upsetting this is when we have a massively high level of HIV amongst our community.

    If we’re so upset about not being able to give blood then we should work on making the safe sex message get through to people.

    1. Midnighter 22 May 2013, 7:18pm

      HIV awareness education has nothing to do with this daft policy.

      The statistics about the at risk groups are just that: statistics. They are not a guarantee that person A has HIV and person B does not.

      If their screening processes work, ANYONE should be able to give blood since it will be found in screening.

      If their screening processes do not work, then they are simply gambling with people’s health.

      The premise for refusing gay men’s blood is thus totally illogical, and it is not unreasonable to assume it comes from a place of bigotry. In the UK the last time I looked it was even more blatantly biased, since they would accept that a heterosexual person could affirm they had not had unsafe sex, but for a gay man it was assumed that all their sexual activity was automatically unsafe.

      Whatever the reason, I want a blood service that screens its blood reliably, not one that relies on an unqualified subjects unscientific self assessment.

    2. you ignorant prick – the majority of people living with HIV are Straight and usually its a hole men who have no concern for others – read the figures UK and global before you speak shyte you fool!

      1. Which bit you do you disagree with? Are you saying gay men do not have a higher rate of HIV than the straight population? Sorry, but you are 100percent wrong. If people like you wouldnt put your heads in the sand we might not be in this situation!

  4. Helge Vladimir Tiller 22 May 2013, 7:14pm

    Again Sweden is in the forefront- also when it comes to this matter about giving blood. Look to gay friendly Sweden, dear sisters and Brothers.

    1. hmmmm. when did Sweden get marriage equality?
      see? Canada was there first.

      One does need to understand that Canadian Blood Services (Hema-Quebec in Québec) are not government departments, but para-governmental agencies.

      So, this isn’t the “Canadian Government” making this change.

      1. Helge Vladimir Tiller 23 May 2013, 9:36am

        Right -Canada was first with equal marriage. Sweden came in 2009.(–you can marry in churches) But in Sweden same sex Activity has been legal since 1944- same sex relationships ( judicially ) since 1995. Adoptions since 2003. And Sweden bans all kinds of discrimination of gays and lesbians in all parts of society- also in religious organizations-military etc. .But this is also a matter of how society functions in practice- the atmosphere wherever you are open about yourself etc. That is why I consider Sweden to be in front. The Swedish royal Family is also gay friendly–openly gay friendly ! And that means a lot. I love Canadas gay friendly laws and their equality for LGBT-persons. I just love Canada ; and I support IRQR in Toronto ON. ( Canada is VERY POSITIVE when it comes to accepting gay refugees from Iran. !!!) Love to you, Mikey!

  5. So I’ve been in a monogamous relationship for 15 years, but wouldn’t be able to give blood, but a heterosexual man who has unprotected sex every night of the week could? That just doesn’t make sense.

  6. GulliverUK 22 May 2013, 8:02pm

    So effectively they’ve maintained the lifetime ban, pretty much like we have. Whether it’s 12 months or 5 years is pretty immaterial since loving couples in same-sex relationships, the very people who would be at low risk, would be excluded — because in a loving relationship they’d probably be having sex.

    The only proper way is no exclusion but using the right / new test, which gives a result very quickly, that way the blood is simply tested for the virus and value judgements are removed.

  7. alwaysniceman 22 May 2013, 11:33pm

    It is interesting that the only countries that accept gay blood donation without stupid prejudice are:

    Two of them don’t even have equal marriage, yet

  8. I agree 5 years seems too long in canada, but in england, it seems more about striking a balance between reducing risk, and maximising the amount of blood available

    you have to define high risk groups somehow, for example people who have slept with someone in Africa (for example) can’t donate for 12 months either

    anyone who has ever injected drugs, or been a commercial sex worker (even just once) can never give blood in their life

    I don’t have a huge problem with the policy here, and I know if I was receiving blood, I would want high risk groups to be removed (given the testing isn’t good enough yet)

    although would agree it’s probably good to allow monogamous men to donate, I trust the scientists aren’t being homophobic (in England) – they have to define high risk groups somehow.

    1. Young heterosexual men have sex with strangers in back alleys without protection and then go right off to give blood the next day.

      The only viable way is to use the new test. The old test checked for anti-bodies to the HIV virus – those took time to develop. The new tests detect the actual virus – no need to wait for anti-bodies to develop. But our regulatory advisory body, SaBTO, is probably made up of very old white men who all vote Tory and don’t care much for “homo” issues. They have made very screwed up decisions in the past and pretty much lost all credibility now. We need a review by some independent group without an agenda.

      1. Also, the review here in the UK was over seen by Anne Mcintosh, a Tory MP who is notoriously homophobic, voted strongly against gay rights issues, and voted against equal marriage — so she cannot be trusted, she’s not someone who could be viewed as impartial. I’m fairly sure some civil servant have juicy details of what she did there. I’m betting she asked for a policy outcome which would continue to impose a virtual ban, whilst making it look like they had changed the policy. For practical terms, it’s still a ban in the UK.

      2. Genuine question, before someone overreacts like a loon, is there an immediate test for hep b?
        The criteria should be based on risky sexual behaviour including heterosexual. Homosexual men should not be assumed to be more promiscuous than others. It boils down to honesty though and both gay and straight ppl lie, particularly about sex, so immediate tests should be a no brainer.

  9. Gay is not synonymous with MSM or so we are told.
    Gay is a term which in itself means you are a man who has sex with men. Those who identify as gay are honest at least with themselves, if not those around them. MSM refers to a much larger group who do not identify as gay or even bisexual, although they usually use any, and every, opportunity to have sex with other men. They are dishonest in nature, and cannot even be honest with themselves let alone anyone else. So how on earth could you expect members of this group to be honest when it comes to donating blood.
    Also how can a man actually prove he is heterosexual (ie does not or has not had sex with another man)? He simply cannot. No more than a heterosexual female can prove that she has only had sex with men who are in fact heterosexual.
    The whole system with regard to blood donation is as farcical as the term MSM. The former needs a major overhaul and the latter needs to be abandoned, as both are offensive to gay men.

  10. This law is completely stupid. Anybody who lives a promiscuous life style should get some rules about donating blood if they have a concern about it. Anybody should be allowed to give blood and have the same rules when they do. It can save more lives

    1. It’s not a “law”.
      It’s a “rule” set up by the para-governmental organization that runs blood banks in Canada.

  11. For any one interested, here is the posting from the Canadian Blood Services website.

  12. Christopher in Canada 23 May 2013, 12:59pm

    You are nothing but an ignorant bigot, who does not realize that ALL blood is tested before it joins the national supply. A shame that the human potential is obviously wasted on you. Have fun assuming that your identity of being “hetero-normal” makes you superior. Celibate, and not by choice, is probably your real identifier.

    As it stands, anyone can lie on the registration form, including rapists, drug users and hookers, but none of these groups tends to line up to donate blood.

  13. blood contaminatros rights 23 May 2013, 2:00pm

    Apparently the gay devi-an=t brigade believe they have a human right to infect the blood supply.and claim that the rules discriminate.
    Of course they discriminate..for the good you morons!. Since AIDS is disproportionate amongst homosexuals and gay males are 100 times more likely than he=tero’-normal=s to have HIV, it is right that their blood be subjected to stricter controls.
    You have to do the best you can to ensure disease free blood whilst maintaining supply which will always introduce risk since there is not enough totally safe screened blood to go around.
    The b=utt’ bugge’rin.g brigade deem that their feelings override safety issues. No change there!..

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.