Is it time to end the ban on gay men being allowed to donate blood?

I think so. We can now test for HIV/AIDS, so why not test someone in a risk group and then if they're clear let them donate. Anyway, HIV does not kill like it used to, with treatment you can stop it developing into AIDS, so surely the slight risk of getting HIV from a blood transfusion is better than people dying were there to be a lack of donated blood. You also can't give blood if you're a woman who has had sex with a man who once had sex with a man, so that's even more people who are probably clear who cannot give blood.

There are plenty of straight people who have AIDS who are not druggies or anything, so if we're going to stop anyone at risk of having HIV from giving blood, no-one would be able to donate. HIV doesn't only infect gays people and drug users, after all.

It isn't right. And I'm not a Tatchell fan either. But sometimes even those we don't hold in the highest esteem can get it right too, and this is one of those times.

Of course they should refuse blood from people with AIDS, but to suggest that all homosexual people have AIDS - And that is what existing policies does - is just plain rotten. If ever it was true that the homosexual community was AIDS central I reckon we're way past that now. And seeing as I really don't know that many people in the local homosexual community I can safely say that I know more heterosexuals with AIDS than homosexuals with AIDS.

Personalised stats, but they work for me.

Personally I don't do the blood thing; I don't donate and I refuse donations. And not because I'm a JW, either, although I do use a similar opt-out method in case of emergencies - I just have my own way of looking at things. But in a world where a lot of people *would* accept blood it's insane to stop the homosexual community who are kind enough to lend a hand from doing so.

There must be plenty of homosexuals out there whose blood is every bit as good as any heterosexuals. I know for a living fact that there are homosexuals who are willing to help others by giving blood. So we have to ask why outdated prejudices getting in the way.

If any homosexual ever gave blood that saved the life of anyone I care about I know I would be grateful to them for the rest of their naturals.

But as an aisde, why on earth would any homosexual actually want to give blood? They have a perfect excuse for getting out of that whole jab thing and nobody can possibly criticise them for it. If the LGBT community has any sense at all it will let this particular sleeping dog lie, and remain jab-free :oP

The ban was introduced for good clinical reasons and was not a " panic, knee-jerk over-reaction". A friend of mine died of Aids because, as a haemophiliac, he was treated with contaminated blood products imported from the USA by the NHS. Tatchell is conveniently forgetting these victims of the Aids plague.

Tatchell is talking through his fundament - cases that resembled HIV/Aids have been traced back to as early as the 1930s. While the ban may smack of discrimination the awkward fact is that for whatever reason the Gay community is more at risk of at least being carriers of the disease although I know that it is not, as some homophobes insist it is, a "Gay" disease.

Rather than have more people like my friend put at risk I would rather that the NHS play safe rather than have anyone else watch their loved ones die in such a horrible way.

Addendum

Hi Mr H, Normally I would not talk about this either in public in the "real" world or on a public Internet forum but you do not allow email.

But have you ever seen anyone dying of Aids? The lesions, the infections because their immune system no longer works, the lack of dignity, the sheer pain the victim suffers?

Merely testing blood products is not enough.

Haemophiliacs were told that the treatment they were receiving was safe. That the products had been tested.

None of this was true.

There were high profile campaigns and court cases before victim's families received compensation. But my friend and his family did not receive justice and his death just might have been preventable.

With HIV/AIDS prevention is better than the disease as even after 30 plus years of research there is no cure.

Good question Hairyman.

Firstly I think most of us would agree, that much of the legislation we live by today, was created for the right reasons. But were so poorly thought out that in the long term they do not make much sense.

I am a Heterosexual male, I have never had a gay experience although I have no issue with the gay world. However I digress, my wife is a Heterosexual woman, who has never had a lesbian experience (despite the odd bit of encouragement from me) again I digress.

My wife used to engage in oral sex with me, unfortunately she ate something which stopped her doing this (Wedding cake).

Before I met my wife, she had a number of boyfriends and even a fiancee. I have no doubt that she engaged in oral sex with one or more of these men.

I have no idea what these men's sexual history is, perhaps one or more of them have had gay experiences (experimental or whatever), perhaps one or more of these men is bisexual.

Any way around it, my wife has been donating blood regularly for 20 years.

I think Tatchell has a point on this one and we need to re visit the legislation. Tests are much quicker and more accurate these days, and there are many in the Gay community keen to donate blood.

No the ban should stay in place - the risk factor is far too great - the whole reason for the ban was years ago gay men were selling their blood(infected known nor unknown) too these clinics/hospitals for money who at that time had no reason to suspect/check/screen the quality of the blood given and unsuspecting people were given this contaminated blood during their treatmeant and went on too have a HIV. Many gay people will always deny this happening but it did happpen and was the reason for the ban. Just check out the number of thumbs down this comment gets to prove the point.!!

It just beggers belief that any medical organisation would even consider this action because of the short supply of blood or not - another way will have to be found to build up these blood banks supply - pehaps a compulsory scheme - a lot of us will need blood treatment during our life time. I think most people would prefer to take a chance with their illness - life threating or not - rather than 'knowingly' take gay blood because if it was contaminated that would be a death sentence in itself - even now adays with the blood being screened its no guarantee the blood is not infected and its just asking for trouble going down that road of opinion.

And it would be totaly irresponsible for a gay man - when asked by medical people taking blood - too deny being gay.!!

Yes, I think with the current shortages the ban should be lifted. I would not have an issue of accepting blood from a gay man if I needed it, providing it had been checked the same as all other blood. I can understand the ban but it does smack a little of homophobia given the current situation.

I don't like Peter Tatchell much either; but I do agree with much of what he has to say.

Blood is blood, as long as its disease free it doesn't matter where it comes from. But tatchell could start a fight in an empty house, he is a trouble maker. I'm not exactly pro-gay, i just don't give a crap what they do in privacy but he would have his views forced upon us and our kids even though it was against our wishes. That dog needs muzzled.

Yes they are. But before you donate blood, they test you for any diseases so it's not transmitted to someone. But that's for everyone; not just gay people.

Then what happens when something slips up and a bunch of people end up with HIV? The blood supply must be kept absolutely clear of disease and rightly so. If I had some sort of blood borne disease or had a risk factor related to that, I wouldn't be allowed to donate blood either.

I was a blood donor until I had a brain hemorrhage.

Two years later, when I went again to the blood

donor sessions, I told the Nurse about the brain

hemorrhage and she looked it up in the book she

had, and it quite specifically said they couldn't

accept my blood any more.

They are very strict about who donates blood,

and that means people who are gay, have been

to certain countries, had tropical diseases etc.

It is 'not fair' but it is far better to be safe than

dead.