# Outside the Box > Philosophy and Debate >  >  Blood Donation and Gay People !!!

## Cuchculan

This is something that is still not allowed in Ireland. If you are Gay, you are not allowed donate blood. It is meant to change over the coming year. We have heard that before as well. I get their reasons about why they don't allow it. Higher risk of HIV and such things. Surely it is time for a change. Must be something they can do to check the blood or the person donating the blood? Simple test to show they are all clear. Think of yourself dying in a hospital, unless you got blood. Would you care who it came from? I know I wouldn't. Once it saved my life. Not sure how they do things in other countries. Be interested to hear. We have the whole Gay marriage thing legal here now. Time to catch up with the blood donation as well. Lord knows they have not got enough donors in this country. They need a lot more. Thus far if you are Gay, you are not allowed donate your blood.

----------


## Lunaire

This is bonkers! I don't buy the "higher risk of HIV" thing either.

I feel like most modern societies tend to agree that discrimination is not a good thing. We don't apply this line of thinking in other areas of life.

If there was a study performed that determined that people with brown eyes are statistically more likely to have car accidents, does this mean we should bar them from being able to drive? 

Of course not... that would be mad! But it's the same logic being applied here. (ಠ_ಠ)

----------


## Cuchculan

I think they were banned from giving blood in the 80's when the big Aids things first kicked off. This is no longer the 80's. Straight people can carry the HIV virus as well. Their logic is it is more likely to be found in Gay males. I know a few gay males who donate blood without saying they are gay. That is one way of doing it. They simply want the ban lifted here in Ireland. Think they lifted the ban in the UK a year or two ago. If needed, blood is blood.

----------


## Ironman

You do know that they are talking about "activity".  
Anyone who is highly sexually active with MULTIPLE partners needs to get tested.

Gay men were statistically shown to have the highest number of partners - hence, it was a higher likelihood of contracting the disease.  It also can stay asymptomatic for years after first exposure.

----------


## kevinjoseph

To ban a whole section of humanity from giving blood due to the traits (true or not) of a few of them, that's wrong imo.  Can't they just test the blood for the virus?  Seems a case where emotional response definitely overrode scientific thought.

----------


## Ironman

> To ban a whole section of humanity from giving blood due to the traits (true or not) of a few of them, that's wrong imo.  Can't they just test the blood for the virus?  Seems a case where emotional response definitely overrode scientific thought.



They wouldn't be the only "section of humanity".  There are others.

----------


## kevinjoseph

That's why I didn't say "the only section of humanity" but used the indefinite article "a" before the phrase.  Some members of every section of humanity have particular traits that are vulnerable to the diseases that endanger blood transfusion recipients, so should we just make no one viable for the process?  I'm not getting what you're saying.  Is it that it's good that there are others who could be banned as well but that it would be bad to ban only one section?  I'm...grasping at straws.  Don't wanna put words in your mouth though....so if you'd explain I'd appreciate it. TIA

----------


## Ironman

> That's why I didn't say "the only section of humanity" but used the indefinite article "a" before the phrase.  Some members of every section of humanity have particular traits that are vulnerable to the diseases that endanger blood transfusion recipients, so should we just make no one viable for the process?  I'm not getting what you're saying.  Is it that it's good that there are others who could be banned as well but that it would be bad to ban only one section?  I'm...grasping at straws.  Don't wanna put words in your mouth though....so if you'd explain I'd appreciate it. TIA



There is more to it than that.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

I think that it's very, very discriminatory. I really can't think of a logical reason to back that up. The whole rationale to do that is born out of ignorance and fear and prejudice, imo. 

How many men have come home to find out later that their wife was infected with HIV because the guy decided to have an affair, and vice versa. How many women have infected their husbands, not partners but their HUSBANDS with HIV? 

It's estimated that only 60% of people infected now EVEN KNOW THEIR STATUS.

This is not just a disease that infects gay men, and if you think that you are really horribly uneducated and / or very homophobic imo.

If you think that, then you need to educate yourself. Or you could wind up having AIDS, and wondering how the hell you got it.

https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overv...bal-statistics

This is not new information, btw. This myth of AIDS only coming from homosexual male activity is something that was starting to be dismissed back in the 1980's here in the US.

Eddie Murphy did a comedy routine back in the 80's that talked about this, that was very, very popular at the time. He talked about a man going to his GP, and in this hypothetical (yet very times, very true) situation his doctor came back and said "I'm sorry but your test results came back and you have AIDS". And this guy's reply was "But how can I have AIDS, I'm not a homosexual". And the docs sarcastic reply was "Sure you're not a homosexual".

The joke wasn't funny because he had AIDS, it was funny (although not very politically correct) because the doctor was so ignorant as to believe the only way to get AIDS was from homosexual sex between two men.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

My ex-wife, btw, had multiple affairs, and I found out after I'd had sex with her AFTER she'd had the affairs. I was scared to death that I had AIDS or some other STD. I got tested multiple times and thank God I don't. But I was afraid that I might have contracted the HIV virus from having sex with my wife. So afraid that I got tested three months after, six months after, a year after and then again a couple of years after, ffs.

----------


## Otherside

Samples are taken each time you donate, and are used to test for bloodbourne diseases - including HIV. If the HIV test is positive, then the donation isn't used and you can no longer donate. This is done on everyones blood, regardless of sexuality. And as it should be. We should always check blood is clean before using it in a transfusion. 

The ban is based on discriminatory predjudices. From a pratical point of view, we certainly cannot afford to be issuing donation bans when we are claiming that the supply of blood availibille for usage is low. Glad the ban was lifted a few years back.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

I had thought that every country (excluding third world countries that can't even get testing supplies) used this very simple, very inexpensive and very quick blood test to determine if a donor had HIV. I wasn't sure if they did it everywhere in the UK, and I didn't want to make assumptions, but I'd have been very surprised if they didn't. Is good to hear that they do.

It's not rocket science anymore. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, the test is very cheap and accessible to most countries, so there's no need to discriminate in that way. Contracting HIV through blood transfusions is a thing of the past here in the US. It happened, and there were even some children infected via blood transfusions but that was years ago.

----------

