Should gays be allowed to donate blood?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GeekDrew

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2000
9,099
19
81
Originally posted by: intogamer
Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Absolutely. I've tried to donate blood several times, and I'm turned away (of course) every time. It's stupid. I've had some friends and family that have needed blood... but I wasn't allowed to donate any.

:anger;

:roll:

yes?
 

GeekDrew

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2000
9,099
19
81
Originally posted by: Ilmater
I WOULD feel sorry for you, but it makes no sense why you didn't just go and then label the bag as "don't use." They leave the room and tell you to put a sticker on the bag. You can either use the "use my blood" sticker or the "don't use my blood" sticker. Much better way to do things.

I don't know if that is the way that it's supposed to work, and the people that always visited my office were not following procedure, or what - but that is NOT how it worked. I wouldn't be nearly as angry (just because I wouldn't have been repeatedly embarassed) if it did work that way. FWIW, this was a few years ago... the initial problem stemmed from the fact that another student commented that I am gay, while I was walking in to give blood.... and of course, one of the Red Cross employees heard them, and acted upon the student's statement - I didn't deny it. I was still a virgin at the time... I had thus never had sex before, let alone sex classified as high risk.
 

EvilHomer

Senior member
Jul 11, 2002
329
0
76
There may be some legal issues there.... I know that they Do Not ask you if you are gay ...they ask if you had sex with a man...
 

Kalvin00

Lifer
Jan 11, 2003
12,705
4
81
Wow, I can't believe I read all 4 pages of this thread...

In any case, I agree that gays should not be allowed to donate blood, for reasons mentioned above.
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
Great! Let's allow intervenous drugs users donate blood. I'm so glad it's illegal to sell blood.
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
Originally posted by: Paulson
It doesn't matter because everybody's blood gets tested... I think if they were smart they'd accept it and if they had to get rid of it they could just throw it away...

What about the cost in labor and materials to collect and (even more expensive) dispose of this useless blood? Do you want to be so smart as to volunteer to pay for it?
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: Syringer
Inspired by a friend of mine who tried to give blood today..

I personally think it's ridiculous that gay men who have had relations since '97 are prohibited from giving blood. I mean sure the rate of disease among them may be statistically higher than the rest of the population, but who cares?

Anyone who's had any sort of sex is basically at risk for disease, and I'm sure among the different races there's higher rates among certain ones as well. Should they be banned as well?

Not only that, the blood will be tested before it will be used, so if there are any problems with the blood it won't necessarily spread anyways.

I can't believe this has gone on for more than 100 posts... you answered you own question already:
"rate of desease among them may be statistically higher"

 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Paulson
It doesn't matter because everybody's blood gets tested... I think if they were smart they'd accept it and if they had to get rid of it they could just throw it away...

As has already been mentioned, testing is not 100%. Some STDs can lie dormant while others are not detected 100% of the time. The Red Cross is not doing this to discriminate but to ensure the safety of those that receive the blood.

What are these STDs that can remain dormant? Please give specific examples.

Is the blood filtered in any way prior to use, or stored for a period of time before use?

It's already been mentioned that HIV can remain undetectable for up to three months.

I've no idea about the length of storage. I imagine it depends on demand.

Again, this isn't about discriminating against one group or the other. This is about ensuring the safety of the blood recipients. Some of you seem more concerned about whether or not your feelings got hurt.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
No. Statistical probability of infection is much more important than not offending someone because they feel left out. If AIDS gets into the blood supply, we all have a problem. Gays represeny a small portion of the population, and are at much higher risk. While you may feel you are safe from aids, they cannot know that. It doesn't mean homosexuals should be denied righs, but you don't have a RIGHT to give blood. If they ruled out all people who have had sex, then the pool of potential people would be too small, by ruling out high risk groups, they maximize the number of lives they can save. It's a risk / return calculation, and I seriously doubt it has any basis in gay-hate.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: So
No. Statistical probability of infection is much more important than not offending someone because they feel left out. If AIDS gets into the blood supply, we all have a problem. Gays represeny a small portion of the population, and are at much higher risk. While you may feel you are safe from aids, they cannot know that. It doesn't mean homosexuals should be denied righs, but you don't have a RIGHT to give blood. If they ruled out all people who have had sex, then the pool of potential people would be too small, by ruling out high risk groups, they maximize the number of lives they can save. It's a risk / return calculation, and I seriously doubt it has any basis in gay-hate.

Not all gay people are at higher risk. Celibate gay people, gay people who don't have anal sex, wouldn't have a higher risk for HIV/ AIDS and IMO should be able to donate blood. The screening procedure should be based on behaviours (i.e., have you engaged in certain risky sexual practices within the past X years?) rather than based on sexual orientation (i.e., are you homosexual?).
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Originally posted by: Ilmater
I WOULD feel sorry for you, but it makes no sense why you didn't just go and then label the bag as "don't use." They leave the room and tell you to put a sticker on the bag. You can either use the "use my blood" sticker or the "don't use my blood" sticker. Much better way to do things.

I don't know if that is the way that it's supposed to work, and the people that always visited my office were not following procedure, or what - but that is NOT how it worked. I wouldn't be nearly as angry (just because I wouldn't have been repeatedly embarassed) if it did work that way. FWIW, this was a few years ago... the initial problem stemmed from the fact that another student commented that I am gay, while I was walking in to give blood.... and of course, one of the Red Cross employees heard them, and acted upon the student's statement - I didn't deny it. I was still a virgin at the time... I had thus never had sex before, let alone sex classified as high risk.

Now see, that is utterly absurd. You were a virgin at the time, & had zero chances of having ANY sexually transmitted disease let alone HIV/ AIDS - but because you are "gay" you somehow mysteriously are more likely to have HIV/ AIDS than heterosexuals who ARE having sex? That is just ridiculous & stupid.

 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: aplefka
This thread has 7 pages of replies? What the hell is gonna happen to you? Are you gonna become gay too?

And how are they more prone to get diseases?

How bout you read the thread next time instead of spouting off?

Yes, because all gay people are sexually active, and we all have anal sex. None of us are celibate, virgins, or in long-term monogamous relationships. And even when we are celibate or still virgins, we have a higher risk for having HIV/ AIDS. Right..


 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: aplefka
This thread has 7 pages of replies? What the hell is gonna happen to you? Are you gonna become gay too?

And how are they more prone to get diseases?

How bout you read the thread next time instead of spouting off?

Yes, because all gay people are sexually active, and we all have anal sex. None of us are celibate, virgins, or in long-term monogamous relationships. And even when we are celibate or still virgins, we have a higher risk for having HIV/ AIDS. Right..

And I guess you didn't read the thread either.

How often have you donated blood? The three times I remember doing it (I've donated blood at every opportunity I've had since becoming legal age), I don't remember them asking if I was gay or not. I do remember them asking if I used IV drugs, engaged in anal intercourse, got a tattoo, etc.

EDIT: And on top of that asstard, why don't you check out the Red Cross' page on donating blood.

http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html

Go suck on that before you start insinuating I'm a bigot. If he had read the thread, he would see why, statistically speaking, that homosexuals are in general disallowed from donating blood.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: So
No. Statistical probability of infection is much more important than not offending someone because they feel left out. If AIDS gets into the blood supply, we all have a problem. Gays represeny a small portion of the population, and are at much higher risk. While you may feel you are safe from aids, they cannot know that. It doesn't mean homosexuals should be denied righs, but you don't have a RIGHT to give blood. If they ruled out all people who have had sex, then the pool of potential people would be too small, by ruling out high risk groups, they maximize the number of lives they can save. It's a risk / return calculation, and I seriously doubt it has any basis in gay-hate.

Not all gay people are at higher risk. Celibate gay people, gay people who don't have anal sex, wouldn't have a higher risk for HIV/ AIDS and IMO should be able to donate blood. The screening procedure should be based on behaviours (i.e., have you engaged in certain risky sexual practices within the past X years?) rather than based on sexual orientation (i.e., are you homosexual?).
I thought that was how it works.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: So
No. Statistical probability of infection is much more important than not offending someone because they feel left out. If AIDS gets into the blood supply, we all have a problem. Gays represeny a small portion of the population, and are at much higher risk. While you may feel you are safe from aids, they cannot know that. It doesn't mean homosexuals should be denied righs, but you don't have a RIGHT to give blood. If they ruled out all people who have had sex, then the pool of potential people would be too small, by ruling out high risk groups, they maximize the number of lives they can save. It's a risk / return calculation, and I seriously doubt it has any basis in gay-hate.

Not all gay people are at higher risk. Celibate gay people, gay people who don't have anal sex, wouldn't have a higher risk for HIV/ AIDS and IMO should be able to donate blood. The screening procedure should be based on behaviours (i.e., have you engaged in certain risky sexual practices within the past X years?) rather than based on sexual orientation (i.e., are you homosexual?).
I thought that was how it works.

It is, aidanjm just wants to troll.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: aplefka
This thread has 7 pages of replies? What the hell is gonna happen to you? Are you gonna become gay too?

And how are they more prone to get diseases?

How bout you read the thread next time instead of spouting off?

Yes, because all gay people are sexually active, and we all have anal sex. None of us are celibate, virgins, or in long-term monogamous relationships. And even when we are celibate or still virgins, we have a higher risk for having HIV/ AIDS. Right..

And I guess you didn't read the thread either.

How often have you donated blood? The three times I remember doing it (I've donated blood at every opportunity I've had since becoming legal age), I don't remember them asking if I was gay or not. I do remember them asking if I used IV drugs, engaged in anal intercourse, got a tattoo, etc.

EDIT: And on top of that asstard, why don't you check out the Red Cross' page on donating blood.

http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html

Go suck on that before you start insinuating I'm a bigot. If he had read the thread, he would see why, statistically speaking, that homosexuals are in general disallowed from donating blood.

why so tense, mom?
 

GeekDrew

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2000
9,099
19
81
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: So
No. Statistical probability of infection is much more important than not offending someone because they feel left out. If AIDS gets into the blood supply, we all have a problem. Gays represeny a small portion of the population, and are at much higher risk. While you may feel you are safe from aids, they cannot know that. It doesn't mean homosexuals should be denied righs, but you don't have a RIGHT to give blood. If they ruled out all people who have had sex, then the pool of potential people would be too small, by ruling out high risk groups, they maximize the number of lives they can save. It's a risk / return calculation, and I seriously doubt it has any basis in gay-hate.

Not all gay people are at higher risk. Celibate gay people, gay people who don't have anal sex, wouldn't have a higher risk for HIV/ AIDS and IMO should be able to donate blood. The screening procedure should be based on behaviours (i.e., have you engaged in certain risky sexual practices within the past X years?) rather than based on sexual orientation (i.e., are you homosexual?).
I thought that was how it works.

That's how it is SUPPOSED to work. That doesn't mean that procedure is followed by everyone, every time. I think that workers (for the American Red Cross or whomever), or even organizations, who are not following strict procedures are a big part of it.
 

BigPete

Senior member
May 28, 2001
729
0
0
This country is so fvcked up. This is a perfect time to bring this up since its Black History month and all. Why is that we are taught to accept people of other races and anyone who isnt white usually has an advantage because affirmative action? Now, some of you might think I am comparing apples to oranges or that I might be racist, in fact, its the opposite. If we are to accept people from different backgrounds why doesnt that include gays? I have never understood why people always look at other qualities in a person besides what kind of person they are. People need to get over their problems with gays.

/joke Besides, the few gay guys that I know have the HOTTEST straight female friends!
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
Originally posted by: So
No. Statistical probability of infection is much more important than not offending someone because they feel left out. If AIDS gets into the blood supply, we all have a problem. Gays represeny a small portion of the population, and are at much higher risk. While you may feel you are safe from aids, they cannot know that. It doesn't mean homosexuals should be denied righs, but you don't have a RIGHT to give blood. If they ruled out all people who have had sex, then the pool of potential people would be too small, by ruling out high risk groups, they maximize the number of lives they can save. It's a risk / return calculation, and I seriously doubt it has any basis in gay-hate.

Well said.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
I didn't vote. I'm not sure I could say definitely yes or definitely no.

Anyway, it's not only gays that are excluded. There's a LOOOOONG list of questions that you have to go through in the screening process. Lived in Europe during a certain time window, ever used a needle to inject drugs or steroids, ever paid for sex, had a piercing or tattoo in the past year, etc, etc, etc. In the end they are just trying to reduce the chances of getting contaminated by eliminating "high risk" groups. Unfortunately gays fall into that category. I worked with a gay couple who used to donate regularly when the blood moblie came to our office. Of course they lied during the screening but they were able to donate.
 

edmundoab

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2003
3,223
0
0
www.facebook.com
I'm sure test have to be conducted before using the blood.
So it is perfectly okay.
In fact, it is a contribution to society.

types of blood for gay and non gay are the same