Why are gay men barred from donating blood?

I’m standing right there with Jose Miller3...

From what I recall, the questionnaire asks, "Have you had sexual contact with someone of the same sex?" which inherently includes lesbians. Regardless, the wording is incredibly discriminatory. It feels like the homosexual community gets disproportionate focus on protection simply because they've been labeled as "high-risk."

If anyone of actual consequence is reading this—someone who actually has the power to change things—perhaps the question should be reframed to: "Have you engaged in high-risk sexual activity within the last three months?" This would include heterosexual individuals who have engaged in risky behavior. Blood collected from those who answer affirmatively could then be subject to additional screening and held back from circulation for three months, only being cleared after re-testing before use. Wouldn't that make sense??

Seriously, did none of you even bother to click the link I posted? 🤔

Why am I even trying here?...

the Red Cross said:Permanent Donor Deferral:
1. Permanent deferral applies to anyone who has suffered or is currently suffering from serious chronic conditions involving the respiratory or digestive systems, cardiovascular disease, malignant diseases, liver disease, AIDS, diabetes, or neurological and mental health disorders.
2. Permanent deferral also applies to individuals engaging in high-risk behaviors:
- alcohol or drug dependency,
- men who have had sexual contact with other men,
- men or women who have had sexual contact with sex workers,
- individuals with multiple sexual partners,
- anyone who has used drugs intravenously,
- people treated for sexually transmitted infections (like syphilis or gonorrhea),
- HIV-positive individuals,
- sexual partners of the individuals mentioned above.

Temporary Donor Deferral:
Blood donation will be temporarily postponed for those:
- experiencing mild acute illnesses (colds, digestive issues, low iron levels, etc.),
- following surgical procedures,
- after receiving blood transfusions or certain vaccinations,
- with minor blood pressure fluctuations, and
- women during menstruation, pregnancy, or breastfeeding.

I think it’s pretty obvious—all those categories you guys brought up are clearly listed as people who ARE NOT allowed to donate.

Still, as unpopular as it might sound... I think the list is fine.

I have to wonder why you're even bothering—we all read the article, but I’m talking about the actual medical intake form you sign right there in the doctor's office! That signature is your legal guarantee that your answers are truthful.

Beyond that, don't you think it's ridiculous to be barred from donating blood for the rest of your life just because you had a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex once?

Just because the CDC lists it that way doesn't make it right.😢

Raymond James said:Plus, don't you think it’s just plain stupid that if you've ever had a relationship with someone of the same sex, you're basically barred from donating blood for the rest of your life!!!

I feel bad about it, but I don't really see it that way...

since there's no actual legal liability for what you sign when you're standing there in front of the doctor, I wouldn't call it stupid, per se...

The rules are completely nonsensical precisely because there's zero criminal accountability and no way to verify if anyone is actually telling the truth. You really think this stops someone who genuinely wants to donate? 😕

In my view, it would be more efficient to just flag a donor in the system if something is actually detected in their blood—then they're done. Otherwise, if you’re able and willing to give, go ahead and give.
We have constant blood shortages as it is, yet these policies end up turning away perfectly healthy, capable donors.

Raymond James said:In my opinion, it would be better if they just flagged you in the system once something shows up in your bloodwork—then they stop taking from you. But while you're able and willing to give, just keep giving.

Oh sure, go ahead and try explaining that to someone who ended up HIV-positive because they couldn't bring themselves to be honest about their lifestyle on an American Red Cross form!

Someone needs to explain things to him—specifically the person from the CDC who drafted that blood testing protocol without accounting for the test's inaccuracy or the 21-day window limitation.

HZTM says:
Permanent donor deferral:
1. People who have suffered or are currently suffering from serious chronic respiratory or digestive diseases, heart and vascular diseases, malignant diseases, liver disease, AIDS, diabetes, or neurological and mental health disorders are permanently deferred from donating blood.
2. Permanent deferral also applies to individuals engaging in high-risk behaviors:
- alcoholics or drug addicts,
- men who have had sexual contact with other men,
- men and women who have had sexual contact with sex workers,
- individuals with multiple sexual partners (promiscuous behavior),
- people who have used drugs intravenously,
- people treated for sexually transmitted infections (syphilis, gonorrhea),
- individuals who are HIV-positive,
- sexual partners of any of the above.

Temporary donor deferral:
Donations are temporarily postponed for individuals:
- dealing with minor acute illnesses (colds, digestive issues, low iron levels, etc.),
- following surgical procedures,
- after receiving transfusions or certain vaccinations,
- with mild blood pressure issues,
- women during menstruation, pregnancy, or breastfeeding.

So here's the thing...
Look, I’m a rule-follower at heart, and I totally believe we should respect medical guidelines, but I can’t help but notice that based on these rules, basically NO ONE would be allowed to donate blood.
Because:
1. Serious respiratory diseases include things like bronchial asthma (which used to get people drafted out of military service) or severe allergic rhinitis—which are just seasonal issues, and someone in remission is effectively perfectly healthy. By the way, those aren't contagious diseases and they don't transmit through blood. It's the same deal with people having slightly elevated blood pressure. Or even people dealing with mild depression triggered by, say, a breakup. But ten years later, when they want to donate blood—nope!

2.
- Alcoholics—back when there was a blood drive in this small town I know, all the big, tough guys from the local grocery store, the farmers, and the vineyard workers showed up to donate—and every single one of them were total lightweights who knock back at least a liter of booze every day just to function. They are the literal definition of alcoholism, yet they don't consider themselves alcoholics!
- For IV drug users, the line is clear enough, but what about the folks who just crush an ecstasy pill or snort a line of white powder now and then?
- Saying anyone who ever had a homosexual encounter is out? That’s stupidity squared. What about women who have never been with a woman but caught HIV from their sailor husbands?
- Contact with a sex worker—what if you hook up with someone and you have no idea they're a professional? 😈
- "Promiscuous"—how are we supposed to define that? Is it one partner a day, two different ones a week, four a month, or ten a year???
- Being HIV-positive—that is the only logical and justifiable rule here.
- As for those who had syphilis or gonorrhea—it's not even remotely the same thing; gonorrhea is cured with an antibiotic or a penicillin shot, and it doesn't leave an antigen in your system, so there's no such thing as a "carrier" of gonorrhea (unlike syphilis)—the culprit is the gonococcus. By that logic, someone who had strep throat is even more dangerous because they could potentially carry asymptomatic beta-hemolytic sepsis and pass it through the blood...

I'm exhausted just thinking about it, and I could honestly go on...

In my opinion, the only truly decisive factor for donors right now should be their current health status (determined via an on-site exam) and their lab results.👍

Susan Martin24 said:I think the only real, definitive factors for donors right now are their current health status—determined via an on-site exam—and their lab results 👍

But how would they lower the risk of someone being in a window period? You know, when blood work doesn't show an infection for some serious illness yet—like HIV or Hep C?

disclaimer: I'm not attacking you or anything. Just thinking maybe you have an idea that isn't clicking for me...

Susan Martin24 said:Red Cross says:
Permanent donor deferral:
1. People who have suffered from or currently suffer from... diabetes... are permanently deferred from donating blood...

In Australia, young people with well-managed Type 1 diabetes can actually donate if they want to. I mean, it's not an official ban, but sometimes they just get turned away with some vague excuse like, "It’s probably better if you don't..."

As for Type 2, honestly, a massive amount of those folks go undiagnosed for ages—so I’m betting a good chunk of them end up donating anyway without even knowing...

Jose Miller3 said:How would you even go about lowering the risk of someone being in that window period? You know, when blood tests aren't showing any sign of an infection from a serious disease (whether it's HIV or Hep-C)?

Just a disclaimer here: I’m not attacking you at all. I honestly just figured you might have some insight that hasn't crossed my mind yet...

Honestly? There isn't a way.
In my opinion, that window period is the absolute worst part of why AIDS is such a brutal disease—you’re just left hanging, never truly knowing if you're healthy or if something is brewing inside you.

My partner and I have used condoms our entire lives specifically because of that uncertainty. I can never look myself in the mirror and say I'm 100% certain I don't have HIV or Hepatitis C (though I am vaccinated for Hep-B). 👎

Still, despite those worries, both I and many of my colleagues in surgery and scrub tech roles still donate blood. And receiving a transfusion? Obviously, there's always a risk involved... but when it's a life-or-death necessity, you don't have a choice. 😛

(And hey, I get that you aren't attacking me... I'm really not that paranoid, I promise. 😉 )

Jose Miller3 said:How are you supposed to lower the risk of someone being in a window period, where blood tests aren't showing an infection from a serious disease (be it HIV or Hep-C)?

How is someone who had sex with a person of the same gender six years ago still in a window period?
And how much riskier is sex between two men compared to anal sex between a man and a woman?

In my book, the only sexual history criterion that should matter is having zero high-risk encounters during a specific timeframe. Telling a guy who did whatever he wanted in his youth, but has been faithful to his wife for the last 20 years—and she to him—that he can't donate blood because he hooked up with a man when he was 18? Total idiocy.

Edward Green said:How can someone who had sex with someone of the same gender six years ago still be in a window period?
And how much riskier is sex between two guys compared to anal sex between a man and a woman?

In my book, the only real metric regarding sexual history should be whether there were zero high-risk encounters during a specific timeframe. I mean, telling a guy who might have done God knows what in his wild youth, but has been completely faithful to his wife for the last 20 years—and she to him—that he can't donate blood because of something that happened when he was 18? That’s just pure idiocy.

You nailed it—absolute idiocy. I'm right there with you, 👍 👍 👍
It’s just as nonsensical to build an entire system, along with discriminating against anyone who doesn't fit the "perfect" mold, based solely on anamnesa (because let's face it, that questionnaire is just an subjective self-report) 👎

Edward Green said:And how much riskier is sex between two men compared to anal sex between a man and a woman?

It's a total mistake that they didn't include this too instead of just focusing on removing homosexuals from the list. Blood donation screening needs incredibly strict filters because you can never be 100% sure a test actually caught the AIDS virus. I'm terrified of catching AIDS just because I tripped and cut my hand or something..

I think it’d be way more effective to frame the question about risk differently. Don't just talk about specific scenarios; explain that any unprotected encounter—including oral—with someone who falls into a high-risk category counts. This isn't just about sex workers or people of the same gender; it's about anyone who doesn't have a fresh, clean test result from someone they haven't been intimate with, or even someone who's just locally "well-known" in certain circles. We need to appeal to people's conscience. Even if they think, "It won't happen to me," they should have enough decency not to pass potentially infected blood to someone who is already struggling or vulnerable. If someone truly wants to donate blood, waiting six weeks shouldn't be an issue if we just used more sensitive testing methods. That way, they could be sure that they aren't hurting anyone.

blueranger12 said:So I guess it’s a mistake they didn't include that part instead of just banning homosexuals.

I wouldn't have any problem receiving blood from someone who's only ever had homosexual encounters, tests regularly for HIV, only has sex after getting a clean bill of health, and always uses protection.
ESPECIALLY if he was doing experiments in his youth, but for the last 20 years, he's been married to his wife and hasn't cheated once. (But according to this system, he can't donate blood. Ever.)

What, like you can't detect the virus in homosexuals until 40 years after infection or something? 🙄 Or maybe it's fine if it's caught through a small cut during anal sex, but if you get it from swallowing sperm or standard vaginal sex, then everything is totally fine. 🙄

Seriously, if you fuck someone in the ass one single time, you're banned from donating blood forever. What a brilliant rule that would be.

Look, if everyone actually bothered to get their tests done instead of waiting six months, hospitals wouldn't be facing these massive blood shortages...

Which test takes 6 months to come back? 😕
I don't follow.

It’s not that the test itself takes six months. Rather, you run two tests spaced six months apart to be 100% certain—assuming there haven't been any further risky encounters in the meantime.

By the way, you can get tested anonymously and for free at the Fran Mihaljević Infectious Disease Clinic, and you'll have your results within 24 hours. 🙂