Comments on: FDA Still Says If You Are Gay, You Can’t Donate Blood

By: Neal

Neal — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:21:40 +0000

I don’t agree with this. If they test your blood for HIV/AIDS it shouldn’t matter. There is a blood shortage and gays wanna give so let them! I’m donating today and I hope some of the homo-haters get my blood and it turns them all into big fairies!

By: jecwhite

jecwhite — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:20:35 +0000

I’m gay and I still donate.

By: Nonofyour

Nonofyour — Fri, 25 May 2007 21:14:28 +0000

The fact that they have a genitic disorder, that they are REALLY sick.

By: websnap

websnap — Fri, 25 May 2007 16:53:53 +0000

Gay men a being put in the same category as Drug users a Prostitutes because it a widely accepted myth the gay men can’t can’t be trusted to stay monogamous during the time between the HIV test and the actual blood donation. The fear is that some “homo” get tested, be cleared, but then be unable to keep it in his pants with the same partner before giving blood. It’s stupid and it’s prejudicial. Also, the numbers are higher for gay men then strait men be cause most people getting tested are gay, the strait men don’t think it will happen to them so they don’t get tested. If a person tests clean they should be able to help boost the blood supply. End of story. Everything else is spin.

By: alex

alex — Fri, 25 May 2007 15:36:24 +0000

@terminaldigit : thanks for the great explanation.
@all others : if you were asked to accept blood that may be contamined with HIV (with a risk 200 times higher (with gay donors), would YOU accept??? my answer is no. What is so difficult with that to nderstand? This is all about safety. The fact is that if gay, junkies and whores would be able to donate blood the chances of contamination would greatly improve. if you don’t understand that you’re simply stupid.

By: Elanor

Elanor — Fri, 25 May 2007 13:41:22 +0000

When you go to donate blood, regardless of if you’re a man or a woman, they ask you if you’ve had sex with a man (if you’re male) or if you’ve had sex with a man who may have slept with another man. I always find it funny that its “since 1977″. I wonder what they would say if you said, “Oh no, he did that before then, its alright.”
I still am irked that I can’t donate blood because I lived in Europe for 1 month too long when I was 9 months old, and DIDN’T EAT BEEF. I’m 23 now.. oh yes, I for sure have mad cow, and I’m going to infect other people with my blood. It’s stupid.
Aids, I understand is more serious but if you *know* you don’t have it, and they test for it anyway, you should be allowed to donate. Gay men should just be allowed to be tested first, then come back with a certification. Viola, problem solved.

By: Muff

Muff — Fri, 25 May 2007 03:04:01 +0000

Those who are gay and disagree with this policy are still donating because there is no test to determine if you are gay. Just say no on the form. Problem solved.

Now there, doesn’t that make everyone feel safer about our precious blood supply? At least Spain and Switzerland welcomes gay donors so that more lives could potentially be saved.

Also, I don’t know many whores who take the time out of their day to donate blood, but god bless them if they try!

By: Myke

Myke — Fri, 25 May 2007 00:30:57 +0000

@Terminal: Well said. I didn’t see anything wrong with this decision. You just explained it a lot better than I could. That last part about the women thing wasn’t meant to be serious.

By: TerminalDigit

TerminalDigit — Thu, 24 May 2007 23:24:40 +0000

Look, the integrity of the blood supply is something that is incredibly important. In a situation in which a patient needs to be transfused, the last thing the physican (and patient) want to have to worry about is if they are going to cause the patient further harm by doing so. While all donated blood is currently screened for HIV, you may be surprised to learn that this test, like all tests, has a failure rate. It is extremely low, but because the total number of transfusions in the United States is so enormous (over 20 million units/year), the reality is that it is possible to contract HIV from blood that has been tested and accepted, and it does happen. The only ways to reduce that chance are to 1) improve the test or 2) reduce the incidence of HIV in the incoming blood. Work on the first option is of course always in progress, but this decision maintains past policy on the 2nd option---men who have had sex with men have HIV rates 200 times higher than other potential donors and constitute the highest risk group, followed by IV drug users and people who have sex for money---these three groups are the "low-hanging fruit" and excluding them as donors greatly lowers the chance of HIV transmission by transfusion. Hopefully that sheds some light on the situation. I understand that this may seem discriminatory, but this truly is about protecting the blood supply. I assume (and hope) that those of you commenting that this has anything to do with "catching gay" are joking. @Myke: They don't ask this of women because the increased rate of transmission is associated with anal-receptive intercourse. While many heterosexual couples also engage in anal intercourse, the fact remains that (for whatever reason) the prevalence of HIV in that group is several orders of magnitude less than in men who have had sex with men.

By: Muff

Muff — Thu, 24 May 2007 22:18:26 +0000

They can’t donate blood, but they can donate their organs. Sounds like ideologies are getting in the way of rational thought.