Comments on: Senators: Lift ban on gays donating blood

By: Bob Flavell

Bob Flavell — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:43:29 +0000

No military service. No marriage. No joint tax returns. No visiting in the hospital. No job protection. No blood donations. Sounds like bigotry to me.

By: Triton95

Triton95 — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:26:11 +0000

@michaelandfred You forget to mention that promiscuos heterosexual men are also high risk, even higher than gay men who are not promiscuos and live in a mutual monogamous relationship. YOur sexual orientation does not detemine how high is the risk. What does determine it is how promiscuos you are and is not because you are gay or straight.

By: Sara Amber

Sara Amber — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:52:56 +0000

Weighing in here – I am the retired office manager for the Hepatitis Education Project in Seattle. I also have hepatitis C which automatically disqualifies me to give blood. Five years ago I had my hip replaced and prior to surgery I banked my own blood in case I needed a transfusion (I did). After the first bag was drawn I got a call from the blood bank telling me I was ineligible to donate blood because I have hepatitis C.

That’s how they work now. Blood is screened for a zillionteen different diseases and you are told, by letter and/or by phone call, that you have thus-and-such condition and are ineligible to give blood.

The FDA has no business continuing this antiquated, discriminatory system in light of the newest state-of-the-art screening procedures.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:09:34 +0000

Gay people are a diverse group. It makes no sense to lump us all together and label us high risk. Who poses greater risk, a male couple who have been monogamous for 30 years, or a swinging straight couple who have had unprotected sex with hundreds of third parties? Anal sex poses a high risk for transmitting HIV, but that’s equally true whether the participants are two men or a man and a woman. As I recall, male-male sex in itself is no riskier than male-female sex.

The article notes that the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, and the American Association of Blood Banks reported in 2006 that the ban “is medically and scientifically unwarranted.” Stereotypes are a very poor basis for medical policy. It’s time to be guided by science and lift this archaic ban!

By: judderwocky

judderwocky — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:43:29 +0000

LOL… michaelandfred are you a troll from a fundy site? ???? I take offense at your assumptions that WE ALL are high risk. I am not a risk for anything and haven’t been for some time. You obviously have some issues with the gay community if you think we all act like whatever it is you think your acting like…. and thats nothing to act up about lol

as for the feelings of hemophiliacs… you are taking a risk anytime you put something in your body it didn’t make. frankly I would just be happy people wanted to try and help … If i was a hemophiliac I would assume I would just have to trust the technology that was in place to protect me…supergyromaticbloodsensor2000 or whatever… your implicit belief that we should cater to feelings of fear however is more troublesome… where exactly does that line end?

By: Berdache Bear

Berdache Bear — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:42:16 +0000

So, now they want our blood! But, God forbid we should be allowed to serve in the military next to a straight person. I guess blood inside somebody isn’t as dangerous as a gay person NEXT TO somebody.

By: michaelandfred

michaelandfred — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:35:13 +0000

@Wayne, it only takes ONE sex partner to transmit HIV. There are thousands of HIV positive men and women out there who had a “normal” sex life and still were infected with HIV and there are hundreds of thousands, millions?, of people out there who have had multiple anonymous partners and have taken care and have managed to stay HIV free.

And while we would hope that people would have some morals and not donate if they know they were positive, the sad fact is that more than 1 in 4 people who are HIV positive have NO CLUE they are.

That said, I find this a very difficult topic. As a group we are high risk. It doesn’t have to be about discrimination, that’s just a fact. Giving blood is not a “right”. IF the new methods of testing are 100% accurate and all tainted blood can be detected, then fine. If NOT, if there is even a chance that one innocent person could become infected because someone with HIV, known or not, donated blood, then I have no problem keeping the ban until a fool proof way IS discovered.

If I was a hemopheliac and knew that there was a “chance” that tainted blood could get through and more than 1 in 4 infected didn’t know, I’d think my life was more important than someone’s hurt feelings over the idea of being discriminated against.

My hurt feelings don’t trump someone else’s health. I’m not that selfish. If they can make it 100% safe then lift the ban. If not, keep it until they can. Virtually zero? Would you trust someone to not wear a condom if they told you the chance was “virtually zero?”

By: Wayne M.

Wayne M. — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:55:51 +0000

A blanket ban just does not make sense in light of current knowledge and blood-testing technology. Having said this, I also believe that anyone wishing to give blood has a moral responsibility to avoid taking undue risks. While having Gay sex with other men is no reason to ban a person from donating blood, having sex with multiple anonymous sexual partners and/or not taking safer sex precautions certainly is a good reason for not donating blood.

By: bobweekend

bobweekend — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:18:31 +0000

Even if they list this restriction I still could not give blood. I was stationed in Germany and because of the mad cow scare I am banned.