Gay Metro Student Fighting 'Discriminatory' Blood Donation Law

I cannot give blood either. I am not gay but I have been to Africa and the Middle East. While I was in the military I was injected with several vaccines, many of which I don't even know their name. I was told that it is best that I don't give blood, that I shouldn't give blood. Should I stamp my feet at this unfairness, should I hold me breath until I turn blue, or should I accept that when you are dealing with millions of people donating that some people will be exempted as the first line of screening. I have no tatoos either which would also disqualify me from giving blood.

Unless you can prove 100% without a doubt and put it in writing that they can detect aids or the HIV virus in any and every blood sample then I agree we should continue to not allow diabetics, heroin users, tatooed individuals, gays and people that have lived in 3rd world countries recently from being allowed to give blood. Or better yet, to keep them from whining, allow them to donate blood and then either hold it for when they need it or destroy it after they leave.

I can't give blood either because I am a cancer survivor, but I can understand why. I know people want to donate blood out of the goodness of their hearts, but there does have to be guide lines. I don't feel they are discriminatiing. I think they are thinking safety.

While I do agree with not accepting blood from a wide variety of groups of people, gay individuals are not part of them. HIV/AIDS related issues are not a gay person's problem; No matter what your sexual preference is, you run the risk of contracting the virus.
No technology that exists in this day in age will detect anything 100% of the time. If we went with that line of thinking, no one would be giving blood. Reduce chances of problems by eliminating the most risky groups of people. Gays are not at the top of the list, by far.

Nothing against gay men personally, but the fact is that a recent HIV infection will not show up even in the best HIV test. Therefore for the safety of all people who made need blood, the FDA (not the Red Cross) has put stipulations to eliminate the highest risk donors. Like it or not, Gay men and intravenous drug users top this list. Even if you think you’re in a monogamous relations ship, your partner may be seeing it that way. Do to the physical facts of male-male sex; you are much more likely to contract the virus if exposed. This is not homophobia, it is fact.
If you’re a Gay man and your feelings have been hurt by this restriction, for just one moment put yourself in the shoes of one of the tens of thousands of hemophilia patients who have contracted HIV through transfusion. It is beyond selfish to put these people at risk, just to make yourself feel better about, whether it’s because you honestly want to give blood or you want your sexual choices to be accepted.
If medical science can find away to determine whether blood is HIV positive within a day of exposure, I would be first in line to advocate for allowing gay men to donate, and would even be grateful to take a transfusion if I ever needed it. For now though the current policy is designed to protect people lives not their feelings, it is also the correct policy with consideration to the dangers involved. Peace & Love to all.
Below is a link and an excerpt from a reliable internet source if you want more information.
http://www.thebody.com/content/art13321.html
Most may be familiar with the concept of a "window period" with new HIV infections -- that is, a time of weeks to months when a recent HIV infection may not be detected by standard HIV tests. Because the tests spot antibodies to the virus, and antibodies take time to develop in a newly infected person, there is a period when one can test "HIV negative" yet still transmit the virus to others. This "infectious window" remains open due to the current limitations of testing technology. When HIV testing first became available, the tests were not very refined -- they often left open as much as a six-month window for HIV to slip through. Improvements in testing technology have narrowed the window period to no more than a few weeks. But the testing technologies in place cannot close the window entirely because of the way HIV establishes an infection in a new host.

Cry me a river!!!
This guy does not care about helping others. If he did he would think of others safety.
I give blood and they ask many questions about sexuality and rightly so.
This guy doesn't want to help anyone. He is just adding to the gay and lesbian agenda.
You may be free to make choices in your own sexual world. But quit forcing it on others. We don't all agree that that lifestyle is safe or moral.
The gay and lesbian agenda will never stop. And its # 1 on President Obamas list.
Helping that agenda is one of the first things Obama did in office.

I have family that I love, is currently in a lesbian relationship. I don't think its right or moral. That does not make me anything but human.

If you had a tattoo you cannot give blood.
Good grief so what!!!
Don't we donate blood to help others? Or is it all about us?

A long time ago, in an age before AIDS, the community blood centers were guilty of NOT screening their donors' blood, and that's why AIDS spread to the unsuspecting -via tainted blood.

We now know AIDS is not strictly a gay disease, so the basis for not accepting blood from gay men is without merit. You may as well exclude the entire adult population (and quite a few teenagers) if "risky" sexual behavior is your main criterion.

Gay people are more aware of AIDS, but many out there who aren't gay are completely unaware that tattoos, intravenous drug use, and risky sexual behavior (which is ANY unprotected sexual contact with strangers, or people whom you haven't personally visited the Free Health clinic with BEFORE having sex...hello?) are the leading causes of the spread of Hep B&C and AIDS in the non-gay communities.

We should be screening ALL donors' blood for lots of viruses & communicable diseases, the top two being Hepatitis B&C, and AIDS. We can decide what else belongs on the list, but the bottom line is we shouldn't be processing ANYONE's blood if it hasn't been screened first.

same old-- "gay and lesbian agenda" really? You are right, it was his agenda to do the right thing and donate blood knowing they would reject him. I'm sure that's what he wanted...it has a big gay and lesbian plan from years back to undermind the blood donation organizations of the world! Personally, I'm ready for the older generations and their close-minded off spring to just disappear.

Just to clarify - you can give blood if you have a tattoo. You just have to have gotten it 3 or more years ago (i believe that's the number of years, but I could be wrong). I've got one and have given blood several times.

Are we still so narrow minded as a society to believe that AIDS is a gay disease? I thought that thinking went out with crimped hair and leg warmers. Anyone having unprotected sex could be exposed, so anyone having unprotected sex shouldn't be aloud to donate blood. Good luck enforcing that one...

Calvin wrote:

I cannot give blood either. I am not gay but I have been to Africa and the Middle East. While I was in the military I was injected with several vaccines, many of which I don't even know their name. I was told that it is best that I don't give blood, that I shouldn't give blood. Should I stamp my feet at this unfairness, should I hold me breath until I turn blue, or should I accept that when you are dealing with millions of people donating that some people will be exempted as the first line of screening. I have no tatoos either which would also disqualify me from giving blood.

Little different situation here, you recieved vaccines that made you inelligible to donate. This young man is inellgible to donate because he's a gay man. Stomp your feet all you want, you already have other issues if you are comparing a vaccine to sexual orientation. But thank you for your serice to our country.

John wrote:

Unless you can prove 100% without a doubt and put it in writing that they can detect aids or the HIV virus in any and every blood sample then I agree we should continue to not allow diabetics, heroin users, tatooed individuals, gays and people that have lived in 3rd world countries recently from being allowed to give blood. Or better yet, to keep them from whining, allow them to donate blood and then either hold it for when they need it or destroy it after they leave.

Wow, that's just wrong. First, individuals with tatoos can donate blood. They just have to wait to make sure they don't get an infection (same as piercings) Second diabetics who have to give themselves injections may not be elligible but not all diabetics are inelligible (I'm pre-diabetic but take no meds and the blood center calls me constantly and yes they know I'm pre-diabetic). Third, it's gay MEN that are not allowed. Gay women are. And there is no 100% way to know your not positive without a test now, just because you think you don't have HIV doesn't mean you don't have it. What if a women doesn't know that her partner slept with a guy? Go figure someone would lie about their past. If we go by your rules there would be no one to donate blood at all because anyone that is sexually active has a chance (no matter how remote) of being exposed to HIV/AIDS so since they can't 100% be right 100% of the time...hope you don't need blood in your lifetime....

I think most of these comments while have their own points, you have to think, the point James is trying to make is that sure all blood needs to be tested, but not just gay men are a risk, yes apart from your IV drug users, and people who have tattoos, but not just gay men have sex with men, so do bisexual men, and straight men who are not strong enough to admit to themselves that they like men, and yes folks this does happen, so therefore should ALL men be banned from giving blood, you cannot tell a man is sleeping with a man from their looks so how do we all suggest we police this? you can't just leave it as a gay issue. The numbers of HIV positive heterosexuals is also rising, so we all need to be looked at these days.

its an unnecessary risk. its also not a big deal. you cant give blood and i cant wear rainbow shirts and skinny jeans. were even

Look I'm a transsexual female and come on people in the LGBT pop let this one go... not giving blood is not a big deal, we have way more important issues to fight... let it go

I think some people have been asleep for a few decades! Come on people! HIV is not a "gay" disease.

I bet some of those people have the attitude "well I'm not gay and she don't shoot up, so why bother with the condom? Hey you don't take a shower with a raincoat on!"

Ok we'll put that on your tombstone ;-)

ANYONE CAN CATCH HIV FROM UNPROTECTED SEX WITH SOMEONE OF EITHER GENDER! It is not a "gay" disease. Anyone who thinks it is is a few decades out of date and very much mistaken. Welcome to this century!

Get over Mr. Stewart. The Red Cross has an obligation to ensure the blood supplies are safe. They would be vilified if even one unit of blood used in transfusions was found to have caused a persons death.

Thanks everyone for all the comments.It is nice to try and get both side's views on things. I would hate to approach this without trying to gain some insight into my opponent's beliefs. With that being said, I'm not going to stop anything that I am doing, and it actually is going to help me to keep on making a difference until something is done. But thanks nevertheless.

craig parmenter wrote:

Get over Mr. Stewart. The Red Cross has an obligation to ensure the blood supplies are safe. They would be vilified if even one unit of blood used in transfusions was found to have caused a persons death.

Yes but unless you've been living under a rock since the 80's, you would know that homosexual sex is no more risky than heterosexual sex is. Only UNPROTECTED SEX of any orientation.

So how does that apply? I mean WTF? It sounds pretty bigoted to me. Doesn't it to you? Excluding a group of people when no valid reason can be established. That seems pretty lame, doesn't it?

James Stewart wrote:

Thanks everyone for all the comments.It is nice to try and get both side's views on things. I would hate to approach this without trying to gain some insight into my opponent's beliefs. With that being said, I'm not going to stop anything that I am doing, and it actually is going to help me to keep on making a difference until something is done. But thanks nevertheless.

Good luck friend. We'll all be rooting for you.

And BTW, I'm not even gay. Just a good decent person (try to be anyway) who tries to show respect to everyone. And to do unto others as I would have them do unto me.

It seems so many people nowadays forget to do that. Some people only look out for themselves and people who are like, for, or with them. Anyway people like that just suck. I would rather commit suicide than to live like they do.

oh come on wrote:

same old-- "gay and lesbian agenda" really? You are right, it was his agenda to do the right thing and donate blood knowing they would reject him. I'm sure that's what he wanted...it has a big gay and lesbian plan from years back to undermind the blood donation organizations of the world! Personally, I'm ready for the older generations and their close-minded off spring to just disappear.

Wake up research it before you cackle.
And know you statistics about the relationship of gay men.
I am not at all focused on this article... I have been following their agenda for years...

You are so naive.