Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

This is a step in the right direction, but it is still unfair to gay men who are sexually active but not infected with HIV.

If they are sexually active then they still cannot give blood. If you have had sex with another male within the 12 month period when you want to give blood, you can't.
 
Needles they use don't allow reuse.

I wasnt referencing reuse, but the fact that humans can make mistakes, and the tech sticking you with a needle carries a risk of sticking that same needle into them, or someone else close by as they work, prior to disposal. Thats what I was referring to.
 
If they are sexually active then they still cannot give blood. If you have had sex with another male within the 12 month period when you want to give blood, you can't.

Shouldn't that be applicable to everyone rather than homosexual males?
 
WEl it only asked of men, since men whom have sex with men category is the high risk are weeded out. When I gave blood man years ago, I was asked if I has travelled to the UK during the time they had the mad cow outbreak, if I am a regular drug use, visited a prostitute in the last 12 months, been overseas in a high risk area in the last 12 months, had sex with a male in the last 12 months and other such questions. So their are plenty of reason why they make sure the blood supply is clean.
 
I'm sorry, than what you are looking for is promiscuity, not male homosexuals.

The question should be: Have you engaged in multiple sex-partners or had sex with someone with multiple sex partners in the last 12 months?
 
You guys are acting like the blood donation centers are just getting their kicks by denying homosexuals from donating blood. Seriously, get over yourselves. Their entire reasoning is to protect the blood supply, and if they have reason to believe their actions are going to help that, then so be it.

Been to the UK during moo mania? Guess what, can't donate! Is that being unfairly discriminatory against international travelers? TOUGH COOKIES.

Really, if you don't want to be offended in this life, well.... I think my suggestion would violate forum rules. Life is frequently offensive. Deal with it.
 
I'm sorry, than what you are looking for is promiscuity, not male homosexuals.

The question should be: Have you engaged in multiple sex-partners or had sex with someone with multiple sex partners in the last 12 months?

I'm not sure if they asked that question, but the did ask the sex with male question within the last 12 months. So if you are a male and you are sexually active wit another male, the questions will take you out.
 
You guys are acting like the blood donation centers are just getting their kicks by denying homosexuals from donating blood. Seriously, get over yourselves. Their entire reasoning is to protect the blood supply, and if they have reason to believe their actions are going to help that, then so be it.

Been to the UK during moo mania? Guess what, can't donate! Is that being unfairly discriminatory against international travelers? TOUGH COOKIES.

Really, if you don't want to be offended in this life, well.... I think my suggestion would violate forum rules. Life is frequently offensive. Deal with it.

I don't really think people are upset about it being discriminatory, I think people are getting upset that perfectly good blood ain't getting used.
 
I lived in the UK during "moo mania" and to be perfectly honest, we were more concerned with contaminated beef than giving blood.
 
Been a while since I donated but I also remember questions about visiting malarial countries in the last 3 years, having a piercing or tattoo in the last 6 months, or being in jail in the past year.

I think the 1977 cutoff for MSM is silly. It was over 30 years ago and they didn't have good treatments back then, so if you got infected in 1977 there's very little chance you're still here.

But even if you narrow the time frame, it's a simple medical fact that MSM are a higher risk than most other people. To claim otherwise is putting ideology over science. In order to protect the recipient, who is by definition already vulnerable, you need to take steps to protect the blood supply. That means trying to filter out high risk donors first, and then testing the blood that does get donated.
 
I lived in the UK during "moo mania" and to be perfectly honest, we were more concerned with contaminated beef than giving blood.

This. It's not offensive because it's being discriminatory; it's offensive because it's wasting good blood.

Your're going to have to convince me that there are legions of homosexuals that havent had sex in the last 12 months just itching to donate blood.

Good luck.
 
Why would I do that? (A) I was talking about the BSE crisis in the mid-90s and (b) even if I did somehow find a legion of homosexuals, I'm not Darius II or Alexander the Great, so I wouldn't have any use for them.
 
You guys are acting like the blood donation centers are just getting their kicks by denying homosexuals from donating blood. Seriously, get over yourselves. Their entire reasoning is to protect the blood supply, and if they have reason to believe their actions are going to help that, then so be it.

Been to the UK during moo mania? Guess what, can't donate! Is that being unfairly discriminatory against international travelers? TOUGH COOKIES.

Really, if you don't want to be offended in this life, well.... I think my suggestion would violate forum rules. Life is frequently offensive. Deal with it.

I'm not sure if they asked that question, but the did ask the sex with male question within the last 12 months. So if you are a male and you are sexually active wit another male, the questions will take you out.

It's a very stupid way of protecting the blood supply. Because you essentially deny people with plentiful of healthy blood and if you don't apply this question to other sexual groups, you are letting in the possibility of bad blood.
 

I stopped at question 10: "Had contact with someone who had a smallpox vaccination?" You know that, just by asking, this questionaire is written by someone who has been in a coma since 1980. Smallpox vaccines were discontinued then. But even if someone got one, it would've been before 1980. So what if someone got a smallpox vaccine?

I guess this should demonstrate that the donation standards are not necessarily based on CURRENT evidence.
 
I stopped at question 10: "Had contact with someone who had a smallpox vaccination?" You know that, just by asking, this questionaire is written by someone who has been in a coma since 1980. Smallpox vaccines were discontinued then. But even if someone got one, it would've been before 1980. So what if someone got a smallpox vaccine?

I guess this should demonstrate that the donation standards are not necessarily based on CURRENT evidence.

I have no idea what the aabb is, but I've never been asked anything about smallpox when I donate blood.
 
AABB = axis aligned bounding box
 
Back
Top Bottom