I wish I could do this but having donated 5 times already I know that I won't be allowed to because of dental surgery I had today 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacRumors 2012 Blood Drive
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
True, though as of the end of 2009, a little over 50% of those currently living with HIV are men who have sex with men. Another 17% of those are injection drug users, who are also banned and another 6% who were both MSM and IDU.
That leaves only a quarter of those living with HIV as having acquired it via heterosexual sex. It should also be noted that those who have heterosexual sex with someone who is in a major HIV risk group (MSM, injection drug user, sex worker, etc.) are also banned.
The point is that the "being straight doesn't mean you can't get HIV" is something of a losing argument if you want to lift the ban on gay men donating blood - they're still the largest single prevalent HIV+ group. A HIV demographics argument won't get you where you want to go.
A far more compelling argument is that HIV+ individuals are now far more likely to know their status, an HIV+ test no longer carries the stigma it once did and between that and much better screening tests for HIV in the blood supply, you can rely on diagnostic tests and individual self-selection rather than a particularly inelegant broad stroke ban.
That's the argument currently being advanced.
Thanks to everyone donating around the country. I had adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia and received many, many transfusions of both blood and platelets over the course of my treatment. I'm around today because of the generosity of others.
I wish that I had been able to help you and others in similar situations, but stupid rules call my blood "poison".
Congratulations, though, on your good fortune.
I really hate that regulation that says you can't donate if you're gay. Why not just get them tested for any disease, instead of being descriminatory?
I donated blood twice this year, Once in January, and once in April (the earliest I could again). I even got a letter from the person that received my blood. It was someone who was in a major car accident. I now know what life I saved
I donated blood twice this year, Once in January, and once in April (the earliest I could again). I even got a letter from the person that received my blood. It was someone who was in a major car accident. I now know what life I saved
Until I can give blood without lying about who I like to sleep with, I won't. They should be testing the blood anyway, as it is protocol. Beside, they don't refuse African American blood even though there is a higher rate of HIV in that community, so why are they refusing gay blood?
Edit: clearly I don't believe African American blood should be refused by the blood banks. That would be reprehensible. Just as reprehensible as it is to refuse the blood of a gay man.
Edit: clearly I don't believe African American blood should be refused by the blood banks. That would be reprehensible. Just as reprehensible as it is to refuse the blood of a gay man.
I now know what life I saved
A wonderful feeling that idiotic rules will keep many of us from experiencing....
Maybe if there were some other idiotic rule - say "Christians cannot donate blood" - it would get some attention.
And of course, I could go to the blood drive and simply lie about my husband and donate blood. Would that put anyone at risk?
Same here with the others, I've got tainted "gay blood."
But, seeing as how I get regularly tested and know the strict protocols for blood donor screening, I check the other box in that questionnaire. In any case, I've been donating blood (and platelets) for the past 10 years, been gay for 29. No issues at all, I'm just "straight" or non-MSM for the length of time it takes to donate blood.
But, seeing as how I get regularly tested and know the strict protocols for blood donor screening, I check the other box in that questionnaire. In any case, I've been donating blood (and platelets) for the past 10 years, been gay for 29. No issues at all, I'm just "straight" or non-MSM for the length of time it takes to donate blood.
That would be counter intuitive as they started as a christian organization, and I think they still are.
If I ever come out I am going to just lie if I am clean.
Boycott the MR blood drive
Why is MacRumours supporting a project that so clearly and unfairly discriminates against a significant portion of its reader base?
Macrumours should withdraw from this drive, and clearly explain to the drive organizers that it cannot support a situation where people who want to participate are forbidden due to scientifically unsound arguments.
Everyone - just say no!
If Tim Cook can't donate - protest!
Why is MacRumours supporting a project that so clearly and unfairly discriminates against a significant portion of its reader base?
Macrumours should withdraw from this drive, and clearly explain to the drive organizers that it cannot support a situation where people who want to participate are forbidden due to scientifically unsound arguments.
Everyone - just say no!
If Tim Cook can't donate - protest!
You know, I would love to give blood. But I am legally prohibited from donating by ridiculously outdated, scientifically invalid requirements in the US that exclude all men who have had sex with another man, at any time since 1977, from being donors.
These restrictions made sense once upon a time, when all we knew about HIV was that it was found in blood, passed thru sex, and was introduced in to the human population just after the Bicentennial. But we now know how transmission from person to person can be prevented, and how to screen blood products for it... which we do with the rest of donations, from sexually active women and exclusively heterosexual men, who are also at risk for HIV. Higher risk than (for example) monogamous gay men who have tested HIV- for years, or non-monogamous gay men who consistently practice safer sex.
Pardon the lecture. It's just that the combo of appeals asking me to give blood, combined with rules that tell me that I am somehow unclean and unfit to do so... kind of irritate me. You want to increase the supply of life-saving blood products, without compromising safety, and without nagging straight people to donate more? Start by changing the rules to reflect current medical knowledge and scientifically valid standards, rather than Reagan-era ignorance, prejudice, and politics.
These restrictions made sense once upon a time, when all we knew about HIV was that it was found in blood, passed thru sex, and was introduced in to the human population just after the Bicentennial. But we now know how transmission from person to person can be prevented, and how to screen blood products for it... which we do with the rest of donations, from sexually active women and exclusively heterosexual men, who are also at risk for HIV. Higher risk than (for example) monogamous gay men who have tested HIV- for years, or non-monogamous gay men who consistently practice safer sex.
Pardon the lecture. It's just that the combo of appeals asking me to give blood, combined with rules that tell me that I am somehow unclean and unfit to do so... kind of irritate me. You want to increase the supply of life-saving blood products, without compromising safety, and without nagging straight people to donate more? Start by changing the rules to reflect current medical knowledge and scientifically valid standards, rather than Reagan-era ignorance, prejudice, and politics.
I understand the reasons why the "ban" was originally initiated, but I don't feel that it is still needed. So, I'm going to be bold and say something that could offend, or anger some people, but - don't tell them you are gay or answer anything sexual related that would ban you (ONLY if you know you are STD, HIV, and other disease free).
You are like my cousin. He is gay and has had multiple monogamous partners. And more importantly, he has 0+ blood (universal donor) so he is specifically called back every 2 months by the donation center. He has been donating for about 6 years.
Blood is still desperately needed, so any possible chance to get donors is a good thing.Personally, I would argue that withdrawals and boycotts are not the ideal solution. I strongly suggest that if anyone is interested in advocating reform, visit http://www.savingliveswithhelpfulguys.com/ . Their model petition summary even makes a point to say, "We want to increase blood donations. Please do not boycott blood drives or discourage others from donating." Hurting transfusion recipients isn't hurting the policymakers; you can end up ruining the life of a leukemia patient while the people making the rules don't even register it because they're looking at the macro level. I firmly believe that this rule will be changed in time, but from reason, petitions, and practical thinking, not from boycotts.
add me in as another gay man disappointed that we can't donate.
blood from suburban-living, white-bread eating straight people is allowed - but it's still screened for HIV - because they do that now. they screen donated blood for all kinds of critters - sometimes they can even cleanse infected blood to get some use out of its constant parts.
so, when people say that we gays just want special treatment, this is a great example of how i don't think so. we want to be the same as you.
if they can test your blood, they can test mine.
blood from suburban-living, white-bread eating straight people is allowed - but it's still screened for HIV - because they do that now. they screen donated blood for all kinds of critters - sometimes they can even cleanse infected blood to get some use out of its constant parts.
so, when people say that we gays just want special treatment, this is a great example of how i don't think so. we want to be the same as you.
if they can test your blood, they can test mine.
My apologies to all the gays who can't donate. Stupid rule, really, they test my blood for exactly the same things as yours, and in theory hetero 'relations' could transmit the exact same stuff. Really stupid rule.
I'm not sure I can donate because I don't think it's been long enough for me to 'recover' yet. I think the wait time is two months, and I donated sometime in April. Danggit!
I'm not sure I can donate because I don't think it's been long enough for me to 'recover' yet. I think the wait time is two months, and I donated sometime in April. Danggit!
I wouldn't go THAT far. To say its unfair, I agree, if I need a gay mans blood, I say hook me up. I'll even cup the balls while I wait. But to say, we should refuse to give blood that might save the life of someone is a little far, there are other ways to protest equal treatment.
You cannot donate blood cus you're gay? I didn't know that. It's rather a stupid rule, if true...
I would to donate blood/platelets/ neonatal blood all of which I have in the past until I was forbidden by a question on the Irish blood donation questionnaire - "Have you had sex with another man" . Previous to realizing my sexuality I gave platelets or neonatal once a month but since having protected sex with person of the same sex I have been forbidden from ever giving blood in my country again.
I am very healthy - I don't smoke or drink but I exercise daily. I have blood/ platelet counts well above the levels needed, it is solely my sexuality which prevents me giving blood.
I am very healthy - I don't smoke or drink but I exercise daily. I have blood/ platelet counts well above the levels needed, it is solely my sexuality which prevents me giving blood.
Really
Which one of you, by being anxious, can add so much as a cubits to his lifespan. Sure, give a little blood (that's sacred), preserve the life of the individual for a little longer and yet he/she still dies. Blood is sacred and I won't be giving mine. God's Kingdom will solve all other things.
Which one of you, by being anxious, can add so much as a cubits to his lifespan. Sure, give a little blood (that's sacred), preserve the life of the individual for a little longer and yet he/she still dies. Blood is sacred and I won't be giving mine. God's Kingdom will solve all other things.
True, but sexually active gay men are at a significantly higher risk of HIV.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/Pages/quickFacts.aspx
In fact, according to the Center for Disease Control, here are the percentages for new HIV cases in 2009:
61% - MSMs (Men who have Sex with Men)
27% - Heterosexual
9% - IDUs (Intravenous Drug Users)
3% - MSM-IDUs (Men who have Sex with Men that are also intravenous drug users)
So, you eliminate gay men and intravenous drug users from the donation pool, and you've cut your chances of getting someone with HIV/AIDS by 73%.
Of course, there are also huge differences down racial lines, but you don't see them rejecting people for being black males (44% of all reported HIV infections in 2009). There are laws against that.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm
That's a disappointing point of view. So, say you were to give blood and save someone's life. That person who would have died and gone to hell eventually gets saved. Then they become a famous evangelist and led 10,000 people to salvation. Or even cure a disease like HIV/AIDS and save millions of lives. You don't think that would help the kingdom?
Losing my blood temporarily is a minor thing that can save someone's life. After all, my body will make more.
It's more than disappointing...don't even get me started on the whole religious brainwashing bu!!****.
...and the ban on the gay community giving blood is absolutely ridiculous...it's really just another form of ignorance. ALL blood can be screened - it shouldn't matter WHO it comes from...