Blood, Transfusion

We need all the blood we can get and STD's are no longer the property mainly of the gay community with a scary risk in the number and percentage of the straight community who have them. I believe the stats are 1 in 3 people have an STD of some kind, that includes cold sores, warts etc. They can test blood pretty well now and I think everyone should be giving blood where possible. Unfortunately I think a large problem is that we have a society that is getting progressively more unwell and therefore cannot give blood. Diabetes, weight related issues often mean that people are screened out of being able to donate and this is going to increase with us growing larger and larger. I have a genetic condition that means I have too much iron in my blood and have never been allowed to donate and no one in my family is allowed to so unfortunately I am reliant on others and couldn't care less where the blood comes from if I need it provided it has been screened properly.

A matter od statistics I am affraid. Gay men in particular continue to be a high risk HIV element in blood donation due to the fact that there are relatively few of them in any given population, and yet they have a higher incidence of HIV in that population. If the gay male population in particular was allowed to donate, the risk of infection would be disproportionately large in comparison to the amount of new, clear donors. A risk that cannot be run. As to the screening of blood. This is very thorough, but not foolproof. There is a 'window', whereby the HIV infection does not register on any of the, currently available, tests. A window of, on average, 1 month. One month in which many would, statistically, be infected from just one donation. Therefore, unfortunately, the bar on blood donation from members of the gay community will remain for a good deal longer still. Before anyone, narrow mindedly, screams discrimination, they should first consider all those poor unfortunate, unsuspecting individuals who have received donated blood containing the HIV infection. In the near future, hopefully, we will have a cure for this, and other terrible, transmittable diseases. Until then, the only policy is to reduce the chances of anyone being infected, surely?

I agree with Magnius , as long as the blood is screened as it is for all people I don't see that they should pose a bigger risk than other individuals as donors. I think this rule is discriminating against a large portion of our community. As was stated in the previous opinion we need more blood donors and shouldn't be driving people away like this.

I do what God had commanded us at Acts 15:20 .write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

Just because someone is gay, doesnt mean they sleep around. A hetrosexual could carry just as many, if not more infections. The blood is tested, so what is the problem.

I agree, the amount of questioning, tests and checks that occur before the donated blood is actually transfused to the recipients means that the chance that anyone's blood with any STDs in it getting all the way through the system nowadays is practically non-existant, and this risk is no likely to be higher in homosexuals than it is in straight people, so as magnius and linmcg1 have rightly said it is discrimination and it is pointless but hey what do you expect with a government that hasn't changed it's exempt prescription charge list since 1968 it's annoying, ridiculous but not surprising that they haven't thought or bothered to change the rules on blood donation.

I do not see why homosexuals cannot give blood; surely they pose no more health risk than anyone else, especially in this age of rising STD’s amongst straight people. I am sure that all blood is screened anyway so any infected blood should not get into the system, should it? With so much demand for blood and such a low donation rate in this country it is about time that this archaic rule was scrapped to allow for greater stocks.