Should It Be a Right For Promiscuous Gay Men to Donate Blood?

[Johnny Mac]

France taken to court over no-sex rule for gay blood donors

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/23/france-taken-court-no-sex-rule-gay-blood-donors/

A Frenchman has gone to the European Court of Human Rights to try and overturn rules seen by many homosexuals as discriminatory that require gay men to have no sex for a year before they can donate blood.

Mr Drelon argues in his case to the Strasbourg-based rights court that the deferral period is discriminatory on the basis of sexuality, and that it also violates his right to privacy by forcing him to reveal his sexual history.

Gay men were prohibited from giving blood in France in 1983 over fears about the spread of HIV, the virus which causes AIDS.

The rule was lifted in 2016, but under the new rules gay men would first have to promise at an interview at a blood donation centre that they had not had sexual relations for the previous 12 months.

Discuss and talk amongst yourselves....

 

[BudKing8806]

In France? I don't care. In the US? Fuck no it shouldn't be a right. If we like you, we will take your blood, if not, fuck off.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I have no idea whether there are concrete health reasons to avoid sexually active gay men donating blood, but that's the only question that matters here imo. There's no right to donate blood. If it's riskier, it may be refused. if it isn't, the n it should be accepted.

 

[HereticBD]

Can't they just test them beforehand? Or at least test the donated blood before they use it? I guess it's cost related, but I would think that they would test all blood before injecting it into someone else. I don't know how it all works, but I hope they aren't just using the honor system to distinguish clean blood from dirty blood, before they actually use it.

 

[Johnny Mac]

I have no idea whether there are concrete health reasons to avoid sexually active gay men donating blood, but that's the only question that matters here imo. There's no right to donate blood. If it's riskier, it may be refused. if it isn't, the n it should be accepted.

94% of new HIV cases among young men are homosexuals.

 

[Gregolian]

In the States at least don't they NOT take your blood if you've had recent piercings, tattoos and the like out of a hope that weeds out any potentials for contaminated blood?

 

[Johnny Mac]

Can't they just test them beforehand? Or at least test the donated blood before they use it? I guess it's cost related, but I would think that they would test all blood before injecting it into someone else. I don't know how it all works, but I hope they aren't just using the honor system to distinguish clean blood from dirty blood, before they actually use it.

It is best to minimize the handling of HIV blood. You don't want to be messing with a demographic of people that see the AIDS virus as a badge of honor. Just google bug chasers and gift givers if you want to know. The blood drive doesn't need any gift givers.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

He could have just lied.

They are going to test the blood anyway

 

[DespicablePeep]

Its about time we the choice of blood, no gay blood infusion for me!

Gay jesus

 

[Gregolian]

He could have just lied.

They are going to test the blood anyway

I think the issue with that outlook is when you handle it you invariably up the risk of handling contaminated blood and potentially getting something else contaminated so on and so forth.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

In the States at least don't they NOT take your blood if you've had recent piercings, tattoos and the like out of a hope that weeds out any potentials for contaminated blood?

Also if you've traveled outside the country in the past year.

 

[HereticBD]

It is best to minimize the handling of HIV blood. You don't want to be messing with a demographic of people that see the AIDS virus as a badge of honor. Just google bug chasers and gift givers if you want to know. The blood drive doesn't need any gift givers.

Regardless, you would think standards and practices would eliminate the threat, even if someone intended to give dirty blood. What's stopping them from lying on the questionnaire?

 

[MayhemMonkey]

if they are healthy then I dont see what the problem is?

 

[Johnny Mac]

Regardless, you would think standards and practices would eliminate the threat, even if someone intended to give dirty blood. What's stopping them from lying on the questionnaire?

Sure. They can lie, but it is best to eliminate groups that have extremely high rates of the AIDS virus.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Can't they just test them beforehand? Or at least test the donated blood before they use it? I guess it's cost related, but I would think that they would test all blood before injecting it into someone else. I don't know how it all works, but I hope they aren't just using the honor system to distinguish clean blood from dirty blood, before they actually use it.

Red cross and plasma centers test all blood that is donated in the US as far as I know.

 

[BudKing8806]

Regardless, you would think standards and practices would eliminate the threat, even if someone intended to give dirty blood. What's stopping them from lying on the questionnaire?

You raise a good point. It's not like someone trying to intentionally give dirty blood is going to see a questionnaire and go "oh, well you got me, plan aborted".

 

[HockeyBjj]

Blood donations do all sorts of things to limit the risk of taking infected blood. Traveled outside the country in the last year, recent piercings or tattoos, needle drug use, and yes higher risks do include gay sex

I’m a little concerned that I can’t find any concrete evidence that they test all the blood taken for any blood born disease, and rather are just playing the odds of they dissawlow the above people the rest will be fine? That can’t be ok, but I feel I’d hear more outrage if it was common that a mother after a car crash suddenly got HIV from the blood bag in the ambulance

I think they do test, judging from some other replies here, there’s just always the chance of a false negative and giving bad blood a green light, so they try to preemptively limit the amount of bad blood that ends up in their system in the first place

 

[Teppodama]

The only people that should have a say in that are the donors and the blood collection services. However, I do believe that regardless of sexual orientation that proper testing of all blood should be conducted always. If a donor has a verifiable blood related disease then their blood should not be used for normal processes but still collected for potential use during critically low periods such as a natural disaster. In such condition I still believe the donor or a duly appointed rep should be notified of the issue and allowed to make the final decision on whether to role the dice or not.

The desire to save life is noble and should be pursued whenever possible and appropriate, but I strongly feel that the individual or their legally authorized rep are ultimately the authority on what will happen with ones body or what is put in it.

 

[Teen Wolf]

94% of new HIV cases among young men are homosexuals.

Oh look the same picture Rip used to spam...

<puh-lease75>

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Red cross page on testing they do.

https://www.redcrossblood.org/biomedical-services/blood-diagnostic-testing/blood-testing.html