Everyone who is alive is at risk for HIV or multiple other desieses, and yet the Red Cross still discriminates against gay men, not allowing them to donate, reguardless of whether they're healthy or not. Isn't this a bit out-dated? Is there a better reason besides gay men might be at a higher risk for HIV?
2007-10-31 03:36:19 · 14 answers · asked by bobo165 2 in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ Infectious Diseases
Yeah...diseases. My spelling isn't the greatest when I'm in a rush.
2007-10-31 03:47:31 · update #1
Although, technically speaking, everyone is at "potential" risk for acquiring HIV or another type of infectious disease, men who have sex with men and intravenous drug users are considered to be at particularly high risk and, thus, are not blood donor candidates. (One of the reasons why HIV became plague-like during the 1980s was because the blood supply was contaminated). Epidemiologically in America, HIV is primarily transmitted through same-sex male interactions. There are other nations (such as India and especially Africa), where HIV is not gender-specific ; it occurs in women as often as men because it is essentially a blood-borne STD, not a "gay" disease. HIV is more prevalent in IV drug users as well because HIV is a blood-born disease and because IV drug users engage in risky sexual behaviors.
2007-10-31 04:02:38 · answer #1 · answered by philosophyangel 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would gladly donate my blood, I am disease and drug free, yet also gay, and I refuse to lie about my life just to donate blood.
They ask that question, "Have you been intimate with a homosexual since 1978?" I refuse to lie, so I just don't bother even trying to donate.
When I first donated at age 17, I was still a virgin. They asked that question, and I said, "Does masterbation count?" They said, "What?" I said, "Well, the only homosexual that I've had sex with since 1978 has been myself. Is that okay?"
They got red in the face and made some sort of anti-gay remark, but let me donate.
To those that say gay men are the most likely to be HIV positive, do you know which is the #1 group of HIV positive people right now? Its not gay men. Its African American heterosexual females. Get your facts straight.
2007-10-31 14:27:43 · answer #2 · answered by Barney Blake 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Red Cross states that homosexual behavior is risky behavior.
Personally, I don't understand that as there are just as many heterosexual people engaging in risky behavior (multiple partners, not using protection), yet they are not deferred due to sexual orientation.
Yes, I think that is a bit out-dated. At one point, gay men were at higher risk of contracting certain diseases, yet now many of those diseases have crossed that line into the heterosexual population.
I think the Red Cross should take another look at their policies. If a gay man is in a stable relationship and both partners have been tested and cleared of any disease, then I don't see why they can't donate.
It's just another example of how close-minded our society is.
EMT
I'm a heterosexual female. Let me add that I have been permanently deferred because antibodies to hepatitis C were found in my blood. I'm an EMT...and I was one donation short of 2 gallons when forced to "retire". I do NOT have hepatitis C. Go figure.
2007-10-31 07:41:46 · answer #3 · answered by emt_me911 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's diseases. Put yourself on the other side, would you want to receive blood that has even the tiniest potential to be infected with anything let alone HIV??? It is quality control only with the recipients future in mind. Since there is a six weeks window for diagnosis it just isn't worth the risk. The blood supply in the United States is very safe and the reason for that is tight screening regulations. Meantime being "gay" is really by choice it is just a hitch in the development of the infant. For example it is now believed that if a mother has a number of sons that have left behind in the mother a large amount of male hormones and then she has a female that female is at risk for homosexuality. Lots of info out there folks, enlighten yourselves with it.
2007-10-31 03:44:43 · answer #4 · answered by Tulip 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is totally wrong, but most people think of gay men as dirty.... I am sure that there is some politically correct way of saying it so that they don't have to look at the truth... But I am sure they have some statistics about how HIV can't be tested for right away so they don't have the time or energy to wait and see if the blood is infected?
2007-10-31 03:46:49 · answer #5 · answered by tammy p 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Basically that is it, that gay men are at a higher risk for contracting HIV and other sexily transmitted diseases than the other general population. It is at this time one of the best ways to try and keep a clean diseases free blood supply for the blood banks.
2007-10-31 03:46:31 · answer #6 · answered by melissa p 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think probably their thinking behind it is that gay men are notoriously promiscuous (not all, of course, but it seems many) and more likely to engage in risky (read: unprotected sex) behavior than others.
I'm pissed that I can't donate blood because I had skin cancer (melanoma) - I donated regularly before being diagnosed and pretty sure I had it for a while before being diagnosed and no problem donating until after.
2007-10-31 03:45:54 · answer #7 · answered by Sunidaze 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Gay men can donate blood as long as they haven't had sex with another man. The policy exists because like it or not anal intercourse is the most effective method of spreading HIV.
2007-10-31 10:46:23 · answer #8 · answered by Frenchboi 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They can since routine screening for Hep C and HIV are standard for blood donations.
2007-10-31 03:55:31 · answer #9 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No there isn't, they don't allow Gay men, IV drug users, people with hepatitis, people from Haiti or sexual partners of any of the groups above.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
2007-10-31 03:41:03 · answer #10 · answered by Sirecoke 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋