The ban on gay blood donors

Were you aware that active gay and bisexual men are prohibited from donating blood? Well, according to the Australian Red Cross Blood Service, any homosexual man who has had sex in the past 12 months is forbidden from donating blood – effectively placing a life ban on most gay men.

Gay rights activists believe the ban is not only discriminatory through the stigmatising inference that all gay men are a threat to public health, but also robs the nation of badly needed blood donors. 

“The ban robs the Australian public of a significant pool of potential blood donors in a time where we know that blood supplies are critically low,” Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby co-convenor Sean Mulcahy told The New Daily. “For us this is a human rights issue and we believe that the ban [is] discriminatory and at odds with safe sex messages. lt also sends out an incorrect and irresponsible public health message, by suggesting that all gay sex is a health risk … while all heterosexual sex is safe.”

Read more at The New Daily.

Do you think this is fair?

5 comments

Well the way things seem to happen these days, as far as sex is concerned -- seems so many have sex with anyone at any time ?   I think so many would be at risk of giving blood Gay OR straight.

Do I think it is fair to stop ANYONE from giving blood if they are at risk YES I DO.

But how do we know they are tellig truth?

Good response PlanB. I don't have anything to add to that.

Personally, I don’t see it as discrimination and really has little to do with “fairness”. The fact is although HIV tests are improving, they are still not 100% accurate all of the time. It is for this reason health authorities are cautious since men who have sex with men are at an increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and other infections which can be transmitted during transfusions. True to say that sexually transmitted infections can also affect any person who is sexually active regardless of their preferences. HIV and hepatitis B have been found in the heterosexual population as well.

There are other groups excluded from giving blood also namely: intravenous drug abusers, people who have received transplants of animal tissue or organs because of unknown risks. Also people who engage in sex for money.

Bravo! Well-said. Moreover, gays comprise only a tiny minority of the general population, so their potential contribution is relatively tiny compared with that of the population as a whole. Yet again, the gay lobby's protestations are totally selfish, and smack of special pleading. The lobbyists, who are fully aware of the alarming statistics regarding MSMs' elevated health risks, don't give a damn about the potentiality of gays passing on HIV, hepatitis, and other STDs to innocent blood recipients. To hell with them...

I have been a blood/plasma donor for approx 45 years, it is my understanding that people that pose a risk are all excluded for a very good reason and that is the recipient of blood products are generally sick already and to expose them to an even greater risk to their health would be extremely dangerous, it is not just gays that are excluded so there is no discrimination, people from the UK who lived there during the eighties are also excluded due to possible infection from mad cow disease which apparently can stay in your system for years, is this discrimination? I think not, just another safety precaution.

You can cop a dose of something whether you are camp or square. Your "lucky dip" may not be so.

 

I was a blood donor for many years and was also on the bone marrow register but in 1993 it was determined that, as I had received a corneal graft in early 1969, I was at risk of having contracted CJD (human equivalent of mad cow disease) so could no longer be a blood donor and my name was removed from the register too; I cannot be an organ donor either.  

I was extremely disappointed to no longer be able to help with blood or tissue donations and have wondered over the years if I might have been able to help someone in critical need.....  Twenty-two years later my health still seems to be good but it is better to err on the side of caution nonethless; it would have been awful to cause further harm to someone already sick.  The health authorities have to do the very best to ensure quality donations and cannot afford to risk anyone's health by taking a laissez faire attitude to donors and any risk taking behaviours.

5 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment