“men who have had sex with men” should be allowed to give blood
The phrase "men who have had sex with men" is used by the National Blood Service, who bar men who have ever had sex with another man from giving blood. Are they right in doing this?
Homosexual men are at as much risk of HIV as any other person when protection is used
Men who have had sex with other men, even if it was only on one occasion, are prohibited from giving blood on the grounds that they are more likely to be carrying HIV. Remember, HIV is not exclusive to homosexuals - it affects straight people as well, and there are no restrictions on if they can give blood. Homosexuals are even prohibited from giving blood if they have used protection, such as a condom, which prevents the transmission of the HIV virus. A straight person is not forbidden if he has had unprotected sex, so there is no reason why a man, if he has had sex with another man using protection, should be forbidden from giving blood. Such measures assume all gay men have HIV.
The fact remains that HIV and STI rates amongst homosexual men are incredibly high, with 2,600 new cases last year alone. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7318346.stm) Statistically speaking, gay men are a high-risk group and it is dangerous to take blood from them. HIV sometimes does not show up in tests for up to three months after contact with the virus and so HIV could slip into the system undetected.
Blood is screened anyway
Blood is screened for HIV regardless of the donor. This has to happen for obvious reasons. This being so, the argument that homosexual men are more likely to carry HIV and therefore should not give blood cannot stand up, because any blood from homosexuals would be screened anyway.
im sure the blood is tested regardless of where it came from, making it irrelevent if its expensive or not.
HIV screening costs money. It is a drain on resources to have to carry out the extra tests required on suspect blood, which the blood of men who have had sex with men would require. If then the blood is confirmed to be HIV positive, it has to be discarded, making the money spent useless. Economically speaking, it is better to prohibit homosexual men from giving blood than to take the blood and spend more on testing.
Labeling gay men a "high risk group" is disingenuous, if the same standards are not applied to other "high risk groups."
According to the CDC, 49% of HIV/AIDS cases in the USA are African-American, but no one would countenance refusing to allow African-Americans to donate blood.
Its not normal and healthy.
No its been proven.
It has been proven,and blatantly obvious,that gay blokes are the larger spreaders of this desease. Why should we all have to suffer.
The change was based on a medical review - so the evidence is that after a 12 month period the risk is no worse (presumably checking for diseases first).[http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/exclusion/]]
There are enough STRAIGHTS.
There must be enough straights giving blood so surely we do not want to risk peoples lives.
There certainly are enough to provide enough but that does not mean that enough of them are giving blood. The UK quite regularly suffers blood shortages. As blood.co.uk says only 4% of people give blood.[http://www.blood.co.uk/]]
What do you think?