Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Gay men cannot donate blood or sperm


mfrmboy

Recommended Posts

I have an uncle who's homosexual and he's still allowed to donate his blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but if straight people are 5 times less likely to be infected, statistically, and make up the vast majority of blood donors...Well the argument has been made. Try this; You open a mobile blood donation business. You only have so much staff and resources to conduct withdrawls and testing. Sensibly, you only accept blood from people that meet certain criteria because you need to make sure you get as much acceptable blood as possible. Suddenly, a group of people wants to give whom science has proven to be 5 times more likely to carry an STD than anyone who actually meets your criteria. Their feelings are hurt. There is a possibility that you may receive some good blood from the group but statistics tell you that your limited staff and resources should really be focusing on where the good blood is most likely to be found but instead, you cave in. Now you are paying people to sift through bad batches and nobody is going to pay you for those bad batches. Then you have to cut some staff because you can't afford them and so on until you realize it doesn't make sense economically or time wise to deal with so much waste and in the health field, time and money is everything in relation to quality care.

Or, you can find a way to blame this on capitalism and homophobia. Me? I'd rather see logic. Liberalism and political correctness has no place in logic and economics. Countries and such things can not be run on feelings. It hinders production and just plain gets in the way.

The test to make sure the blood is not 'tainted' is done regardless (or at least should be). Staight people may be less likely, but unless they suddenly become 100% immune, the blood should still be tested regardless.

I think too much is said of it being simply about 'feelings being hurt'. That belittles the whole thing personally. Some gay people that KNOW they are clean, that have had the revelent tests or are in monogamous relationships, should be able to donate the same as monogamous hetrosexuals. Indeed, if you're so worried about infection, only people in monogamous relationships (or better, celibate) should be the only ones to donate.

Now your arguement has a secondary problem. Currently straight people give blood. Allowing gay people will not negate the vast amount of straight people donating and it certainly wouldn't make a big enough dent to damage the buisness you refer to.

People that know they have a disease, any disease, should have the common sense not to donate. My mum's donated for years, but if she so much as gets a cold she doesn't even consider it. Are people over there really so dumb they'd donate even if they had infectuous diseases?

44 / 100 = unusable blood x $10.00 (arbitrary number) per test = $ 440.00 out of $1000.00 wasted

1 /100 = unusable blood x $10.00 per test = $10.00 out of $1000.00 wasted.

Which makes more sense?

THAT is the issue. Not the medical community being big meanies to gay men.

I think people that don't know this kinda thing is ruled by PROFIT are just a wee bit silly.

I don't see a test that could save someone's life as being a 'waste'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The test to make sure the blood is not 'tainted' is done regardless (or at least should be). Staight people may be less likely, but unless they suddenly become 100% immune, the blood should still be tested regardless.

I think too much is said of it being simply about 'feelings being hurt'. That belittles the whole thing personally. Some gay people that KNOW they are clean, that have had the revelent tests or are in monogamous relationships, should be able to donate the same as monogamous hetrosexuals. Indeed, if you're so worried about infection, only people in monogamous relationships (or better, celibate) should be the only ones to donate.

Now your arguement has a secondary problem. Currently straight people give blood. Allowing gay people will not negate the vast amount of straight people donating and it certainly wouldn't make a big enough dent to damage the buisness you refer to.

People that know they have a disease, any disease, should have the common sense not to donate. My mum's donated for years, but if she so much as gets a cold she doesn't even consider it. Are people over there really so dumb they'd donate even if they had infectuous diseases?

I don't see a test that could save someone's life as being a 'waste'.

:tu: I agree, but you and I aren't holding the purse strings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The test to make sure the blood is not 'tainted' is done regardless (or at least should be). Staight people may be less likely, but unless they suddenly become 100% immune, the blood should still be tested regardless.

I think too much is said of it being simply about 'feelings being hurt'. That belittles the whole thing personally. Some gay people that KNOW they are clean, that have had the revelent tests or are in monogamous relationships, should be able to donate the same as monogamous hetrosexuals. Indeed, if you're so worried about infection, only people in monogamous relationships (or better, celibate) should be the only ones to donate.

Now your arguement has a secondary problem. Currently straight people give blood. Allowing gay people will not negate the vast amount of straight people donating and it certainly wouldn't make a big enough dent to damage the buisness you refer to.

People that know they have a disease, any disease, should have the common sense not to donate. My mum's donated for years, but if she so much as gets a cold she doesn't even consider it. Are people over there really so dumb they'd donate even if they had infectuous diseases?

I don't see a test that could save someone's life as being a 'waste'.

in the usa, if i'm not mistaken, you can sell your blood. so yeah i can see some people who know they're infected with something choosing to give the blood anyway - figuring they're probably testing it anyhow - which they should be.

i know in canada they test all the blood regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why in this day and age are gay and bisexual men prohibited from donating blood and sperm.

Heterosexuals are just as likely to contract and spread HIV or Hepatitis as anyone else.

With blood supplies being so low and rare blood types being in such high demand I find it absurd that gay and bisexual men are turned away.

The blood is tested before it is used so I don't understand why, makes no sense.

When the woman goes to the man porridge clinic I dont think she has a gay child in mind.

She'll want a tall, handsome, intelligent mans man's sperm.

Edited by Mr Right Wing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The test to make sure the blood is not 'tainted' is done regardless (or at least should be). Staight people may be less likely, but unless they suddenly become 100% immune, the blood should still be tested regardless.

I think too much is said of it being simply about 'feelings being hurt'. That belittles the whole thing personally. Some gay people that KNOW they are clean, that have had the revelent tests or are in monogamous relationships, should be able to donate the same as monogamous hetrosexuals. Indeed, if you're so worried about infection, only people in monogamous relationships (or better, celibate) should be the only ones to donate.

Now your arguement has a secondary problem. Currently straight people give blood. Allowing gay people will not negate the vast amount of straight people donating and it certainly wouldn't make a big enough dent to damage the buisness you refer to.

People that know they have a disease, any disease, should have the common sense not to donate. My mum's donated for years, but if she so much as gets a cold she doesn't even consider it. Are people over there really so dumb they'd donate even if they had infectuous diseases?

I don't see a test that could save someone's life as being a 'waste'.

Hey I'm just arguing why the rule is in place. I don't care where it comes from so long as it's checked and clean. It's about profit vs loss and only one of them is good for any business. That ain't my fault. That's just what makes the world go round. And yes, people over here are that dumb and people over here also may not be aware of what they carry and people over here who need money so bad they have to sell their blood just might lie at the expense of someone's profit or life for ten dollars. People have killed and died for less. As I said before, go open your own donation center and run it how you like. If you care to succeed and continue to help people you just might take advantage of cost saving measures to ensure just that.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a test that could save someone's life as being a 'waste'.

It is a waste if you could avoid it. Not all drug users are HIV positive, but I think there is a high enough % to avoid that group.

Of course anyone can withhold info. If they do, than so be it. There are always exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the woman goes to the man porridge clinic I dont think she has a gay child in mind.

She'll want a tall, handsome, intelligent mans man's sperm.

Gay men can be tall, handsome and intelligent.

Also the idea that gay parents produce gay children has been proved as nosense. The reverse (that straight people only produce straight children) obviously doesn't work that way either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a waste if you could avoid it. Not all drug users are HIV positive, but I think there is a high enough % to avoid that group.

Of course anyone can withhold info. If they do, than so be it. There are always exceptions.

If you want to avoid any waste, here's what you do. Get people of every blood type, that haven't had sex (any sex) and aren't drug users (or any other risk group). Seal them in a quarantined building and only use their blood. Ta da! All money that would be 'wasted' on tests is suddenly not required.

Sounds ridiculous, but if money is all that matters, that's what should be done.

Edited by shadowhive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey I'm just arguing why the rule is in place. I don't care where it comes from so long as it's checked and clean. It's about profit vs loss and only one of them is good for any business. That ain't my fault. That's just what makes the world go round. And yes, people over here are that dumb and people over here also may not be aware of what they carry and people over here who need money so bad they have to sell their blood just might lie at the expense of someone's profit or life for ten dollars. People have killed and died for less. As I said before, go open your own donation center and run it how you like. If you care to succeed and continue to help people you just might take advantage of cost saving measures to ensure just that.

Reread what you've just said. You've basically said why the ban is meaingless. Any high risk group can lie. Any high risk group can do it just for the money.All what you're saying is not just that people can get around the ban on high risk groups but they do and do so knowingly. And, because ANYONE gay or straight is capable of doing those things, the blood testing has to be in place with the ban or without.

If I had my own mobile blood donation buisness, the most important thing for me is to get as many people that are willing as possible. Since the blood is (rightfully) screened regardless, in the long run it doesn't matter. I'd not use the ban as a threat or excuse to fire people left and right, nor would I use it as an excuse to cut corners to save a few bucks. The important thing, at the end of the day, isn't the money but the people's lives that would be saved with the blood. Pity that people seem to forget that.

Edited by shadowhive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to avoid any waste, here's what you do. Get people of every blood type, that haven't had sex (any sex) and aren't drug users (or any other risk group). Seal them in a quarantined building and only use their blood. Ta da! All money that would be 'wasted' on tests is suddenly not required.

Sounds ridiculous, but if money is all that matters, that's what should be done.

No, your argument sounds ridiculous. You just don't know, no you don't care how a business runs so long as you aren't offended by it. Blood donation is a very important thing and shouldn't be based on special group feelings. It's not the traditional type of business that strives on getting a diverse demographic. It strives on getting the right demographic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to avoid any waste, here's what you do. Get people of every blood type, that haven't had sex (any sex) and aren't drug users (or any other risk group). Seal them in a quarantined building and only use their blood. Ta da! All money that would be 'wasted' on tests is suddenly not required.

Sounds ridiculous, but if money is all that matters, that's what should be done.

That's your solution? Are you 10?

If you only had resources to take blood from 100 people, would you choose:

Group A - 100 people who say they are straight

or

Broup B - 100 people including 20% who say they are gay

Keep in mind that you have valid statistics they show that a higher % of homosexual donations fail the screenings.

The answer is obviously Group A. Of course if the resources could be procured, both groups should be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, your argument sounds ridiculous. You just don't know, no you don't care how a business runs so long as you aren't offended by it. Blood donation is a very important thing and shouldn't be based on special group feelings. It's not the traditional type of business that strives on getting a diverse demographic. It strives on getting the right demographic.

It needs to get a diverse demographic. There are many different blood groups out there and, for the rare ones, there's the risk of shortages when it's required. Again, it's not about offending a group, it's about getting as much blood as possible to save lives. The only thing that should matter is if that blood is diseased or not. If that truly is what matters than everyone with good blood should be able to donate unless it becomes diseased.

Are there people that have a high risk of getting those diseases? Yes, but a higher risk isn't the same as a guarantee. And, since people can lie anyway (or simply not know they have it) and since everyone can get those diseases, blood tests and fail safes have to be in place regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reread what you've just said. You've basically said why the ban is meaingless. Any high risk group can lie. Any high risk group can do it just for the money.All what you're saying is not just that people can get around the ban on high risk groups but they do and do so knowingly. And, because ANYONE gay or straight is capable of doing those things, the blood testing has to be in place with the ban or without.

If I had my own mobile blood donation buisness, the most important thing for me is to get as many people that are willing as possible. Since the blood is (rightfully) screened regardless, in the long run it doesn't matter. I'd not use the ban as a threat or excuse to fire people left and right, nor would I use it as an excuse to cut corners to save a few bucks. The important thing, at the end of the day, isn't the money but the people's lives that would be saved with the blood. Pity that people seem to forget that.

You're just hyper sensitive. First off, a lot of trust and honesty is hoped for by donors. Lying is selfish and most people won't. Just because they can lie doesn't mean the doors should be wide open. If I had a blood donation business the most important thing for me would be to get as much clean blood as quickly and efficiently as possible and I'll bet my business against yours that I'd destroy you in efficiency, clients(hospitals, doctors) gained and profits made. I'll get ten bags of good blood to your 1-3. Your position may lye in nobility but I'll be helping a lot more people a lot longer than you will be and your legacy will be the guy who briefly helped a few people until he couldn't afford it any longer because he thinks profiling is mean.

Too bad, so sad but money is THEE driving force behind everything. Without it, healthcare as we know it wouldn't exist and doctors would still be performing lobotomies on gays and crazies. Money=funding=research. Kindness and willingness to help is only part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It needs to get a diverse demographic. There are many different blood groups out there and, for the rare ones, there's the risk of shortages when it's required. Again, it's not about offending a group, it's about getting as much blood as possible to save lives. The only thing that should matter is if that blood is diseased or not. If that truly is what matters than everyone with good blood should be able to donate unless it becomes diseased.

Are there people that have a high risk of getting those diseases? Yes, but a higher risk isn't the same as a guarantee. And, since people can lie anyway (or simply not know they have it) and since everyone can get those diseases, blood tests and fail safes have to be in place regardless.

Well, if it's not about offending anyone then efficiency must be the goal. I know there are shortages of blood at times but even when there is the last thing people in need of blood need is blood donation centers wasting time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's your solution? Are you 10?

If you only had resources to take blood from 100 people, would you choose:

Group A - 100 people who say they are straight

or

Broup B - 100 people including 20% who say they are gay

Keep in mind that you have valid statistics they show that a higher % of homosexual donations fail the screenings.

The answer is obviously Group A. Of course if the resources could be procured, both groups should be used.

I used a purposely ridiculous solution to show how hard and ridiculous it would be to guarantee blood would be disease free to save money from doing the tests. Surely if money is all that matters, making a population with 0% risk of having the diseases are even more preferable than the standard population. And if you want to ensure that you have a group like that, you have to go to extreme lengths to do so.

If I had that choice I'd simply flip a coin or something similar. Why? Well several reasons. The first one is simply lack of information. Only the sexuality of the groups is given, but you're not telling me how many (if any) are drug users. Also there's no information on how many pratice safe sex. And to finish up, there's the simple thing in geoup A's statement. that they 'say' they are straight. They could simply lie. As such there could be just as many high risk people in group A and the people that are classed as high risk in group B could be taking all the precuations and be perfectly clean.

And, of cause, as with any statistic, in practice it becomes rather meaningless. Gay people may be more likely to have those disease, but that doesn't instantly mean that any random group is going to abide by the statistics. By the same token just because straight people are a 'lower risk' does not mean that those in either group will have less instances of the diseases showing.

So like I said, I'd be as happy choosing either group and I'd not make a snap judgement (as you have) unless I had more facts. Like you say, the ideal is doing both groups if you have the resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used a purposely ridiculous solution to show how hard and ridiculous it would be to guarantee blood would be disease free to save money from doing the tests. Surely if money is all that matters, making a population with 0% risk of having the diseases are even more preferable than the standard population. And if you want to ensure that you have a group like that, you have to go to extreme lengths to do so.

If I had that choice I'd simply flip a coin or something similar. Why? Well several reasons. The first one is simply lack of information. Only the sexuality of the groups is given, but you're not telling me how many (if any) are drug users. Also there's no information on how many pratice safe sex. And to finish up, there's the simple thing in geoup A's statement. that they 'say' they are straight. They could simply lie. As such there could be just as many high risk people in group A and the people that are classed as high risk in group B could be taking all the precuations and be perfectly clean.

And, of cause, as with any statistic, in practice it becomes rather meaningless. Gay people may be more likely to have those disease, but that doesn't instantly mean that any random group is going to abide by the statistics. By the same token just because straight people are a 'lower risk' does not mean that those in either group will have less instances of the diseases showing.

So like I said, I'd be as happy choosing either group and I'd not make a snap judgement (as you have) unless I had more facts. Like you say, the ideal is doing both groups if you have the resources.

Then you would fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just hyper sensitive. First off, a lot of trust and honesty is hoped for by donors. Lying is selfish and most people won't. Just because they can lie doesn't mean the doors should be wide open. If I had a blood donation business the most important thing for me would be to get as much clean blood as quickly and efficiently as possible and I'll bet my business against yours that I'd destroy you in efficiency, clients(hospitals, doctors) gained and profits made. I'll get ten bags of good blood to your 1-3. Your position may lye in nobility but I'll be helping a lot more people a lot longer than you will be and your legacy will be the guy who briefly helped a few people until he couldn't afford it any longer because he thinks profiling is mean.

Too bad, so sad but money is THEE driving force behind everything. Without it, healthcare as we know it wouldn't exist and doctors would still be performing lobotomies on gays and crazies. Money=funding=research. Kindness and willingness to help is only part of it.

I'm not being hyper sensitive. Yes, trust and honesty is hoped. The key word being hoped. sure most people will be honest, but there's no guarantee that everyone will be. Just because I'd want the doors'wide ope' doors not mean i'm not concerned with getting as much clean blood or efficiancy. Since I'd be open to all gay AND straight, I'd not magically get merely get 1-3 bags of good blood to 10 of yours. Since most donors would be straight (statstically since most people are straight) the difference wouldn't be anywhere near as vast as that.

I think that shows the differnce between are cultures. Here in the uk, blood donating is optional. People that do it do so willingly and you know what they get afterwards? A cup of tea and a biscuit (if they choose). No one here is paid for their blood, so people who give it generally don't have the reasoning to lie that people there do. As such no money is 'wasted' by being given to those that choose to donate so any money that would be used for such a thing can go where it's needed. Like you say, into research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you would fail.

Ah of course! you say so, so of course I'd fail, how silly of me to forget that sucess and failure is merely at the whims of you who gives an example with only one piece of information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not being hyper sensitive. Yes, trust and honesty is hoped. The key word being hoped. sure most people will be honest, but there's no guarantee that everyone will be. Just because I'd want the doors'wide ope' doors not mean i'm not concerned with getting as much clean blood or efficiancy. Since I'd be open to all gay AND straight, I'd not magically get merely get 1-3 bags of good blood to 10 of yours. Since most donors would be straight (statstically since most people are straight) the difference wouldn't be anywhere near as vast as that.

I think that shows the differnce between are cultures. Here in the uk, blood donating is optional. People that do it do so willingly and you know what they get afterwards? A cup of tea and a biscuit (if they choose). No one here is paid for their blood, so people who give it generally don't have the reasoning to lie that people there do. As such no money is 'wasted' by being given to those that choose to donate so any money that would be used for such a thing can go where it's needed. Like you say, into research.

Well we are doomed to not agree but a couple things about the above: If you are the first to open a purely non-discriminatory donation center you can bet that you'll be disproportionally flooded with groups that haven't been allowed to donate previously. So you might not get as much good blood as you believe.

Second, blood donation is purely optional here too. As for receiving payment, that's isn't too common and I think occurs during blood drives when there are advertised shortages. There may be clinics around that pay but I don't think it's much of a concern as far as liars go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a gay man I do understand why we are not allowed to give blood. Fact is, the gay men population has far higher rates of different diseases, and I think it is just downright safer to weed out groups of people who are far more likely to have issues.

This is the very best post on this thread... I think your honesty far outweighs any other comment here, "you the Man!!!

Nobody else should say anything, because you do not have the real info to say anything :no:

Edited by keithisco
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah of course! you say so, so of course I'd fail, how silly of me to forget that sucess and failure is merely at the whims of you who gives an example with only one piece of information.

Don't get me wrong, Ideally I would like to see everyone with the option of giving blood. But if resources are low, I want them to take the groups with the highest percentage of success. We know there are exceptions, but you must use the statistics. The stats should also be updated periodically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haven't the majority of people, gay and straight, on this thread agreed why people in high risk categories aren't allowed to give blood?? all anyone is saying beyond that is the laws need to be reevaluated, as its not the 1980's anymore, people having blood transfusions are not getting HIV infected blood, every single person that donates blood, whether they are Jenny Christian from Smalltown, USA , are being tested for HIV and other infections, every single blood donation has to be perceived as having HIV, so this cost/economic issue people are running with is void..

the rules in these banks should be anyone who is promiscuous should be on the high risk category.. i know just as many hetro men that screw everything in sight, and they are married with kids, and dont wear condoms sometimes, and i bet if they were to go to a blood bank they would lie about it.. just like anyone in little towns would lie about what they get up to.. so you have a percentage of high risk people already donating blood across our countries.. gay men get tested regularly, if they aren't being promiscuous and are in a monogamous relationship why cant they give blood??? thats the question being posed here with the OPoster..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the woman goes to the man porridge clinic I dont think she has a gay child in mind.

She'll want a tall, handsome, intelligent mans man's sperm.

so i take it you don't donate sperm? lmfao..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a test that could save someone's life as being a 'waste'.

That has absolutely nothing with what I posted. lol

I wasn't arguing against testing blood.

Good grief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.