Why are gay men barred from donating blood?

Yeah, we’re talking a few weeks here, not freaking years. 😵

Anthony Kim18 said:I believe certain high-risk groups shouldn't be allowed to donate blood at all.
The risk would just be too high.
Especially since we know an HIV test is actually looking for antibodies,
which don't even show up until some time after the initial infection!

Sure, but is that mindless questionnaire really what protects people from spreading infections?

We need to distinguish a few things here:
- Someone coming in to donate blood is performing a selfless act with no real benefit to themselves; I think that fact alone acts as a barrier against irresponsible people engaging in risky behavior.
- If someone knows they are infected and specifically wants to spread the virus by donating blood, that clumsy, insulting questionnaire isn't going to stop them. Even if they get caught later, they can simply claim they didn't know they were positive—which is almost certainly the truth, given that if their blood is still passing tests, they wouldn't have a reliable way of knowing their status either...

So, this highly offensive screening process doesn't actually accomplish anything in terms of preventing infection. It makes you wonder what its actual purpose is. Is it just so medical professionals can wash their hands of the situation if an infection occurs? Or perhaps there's a racial bias at play, suggesting that among us "demigods" who hold donation records, there isn't room for people of color? If we keep going down this path, blood donation will become limited to the same small circle of donors, which won't be enough—it might not even be enough right now. Eventually, the only way to maintain supplies would be to pay for donations. As far as I know, that's already been the norm in many places for a long time. In that scenario, the right to donate blood could truly become a privilege reserved for a select few, while everyone else is pushed away by any means necessary...🙄

I’m in the same boat—given what I do for a living, I definitely fall into a high-risk category.
But honestly, my colleagues and I never even show up on the radar as a group that would be considered an ineligible donor.

If you look at risk groups in a broader sense, the concept barely even exists anymore. Back in the early 80s, when AIDS was first being identified, the "high-risk" labels were strictly pinned on gay men, people with hemophilia, or IV drug users.
Nowadays, the consensus is basically that any unprotected sexual encounter with someone you don't know well—basically anyone who isn't your steady, exclusive partner—puts you right into that high-risk bracket. 😈

Raymond James said:Plus, don't you think it’s just ridiculous—being barred from donating blood for the rest of your life simply because you had a sexual encounter with someone of the same gender once?

Look, if you go through a same-sex partner first and then move on to someone of the opposite sex, you aren't just being promiscuous—you're being indecisive.😬

So, to wrap this up: this questionnaire is essentially just one of the tactics being used to pave the way for the commercialization of blood donations. The whole point seems to be driving away as many voluntary donors as possible, creating an artificial shortage that forces us toward a paid model. And, naturally, once you turn a necessity into a business, it’s all about lining someone's pockets...

Susan Martin24 said:- an encounter with a sex worker - what if you take a shot at someone without realizing they're working? 😈

Oh, you’ll know—trust me—the second they spit in your face after the job is done. 😬

Susan Martin24 said:My partner and I have used condoms our entire relationship for this exact reason—I can never honestly say I'm 100% certain I don't have HIV or Hepatitis C (though I am vaccinated for Hep B).👎

Maybe just stop being so promiscuous and you won't have to worry about it.😉

So, my Type 1 diabetes is currently telling me that he’s been donating blood pretty regularly—just on his off days, obviously—and hasn't had to sign any special waivers or declarations. Since when did they start requiring those? Does anyone actually remember when that became a thing?

Anthony Kim18 said:In my opinion, we shouldn't allow certain high-risk groups to donate blood.
The risk involved would just be way too high.

Look, everyone is on board with that principle—the actual debate here is trying to nail down who actually qualifies as a "high-risk group" in practice.

Linda Hernandez15 said:maybe stop being so reckless, then you won't have to 😉

I honestly wish I were. At least then I’d know I caught some disease while actually having fun 😂, instead of picking up something while trying to patch up some busted, high-as-a-kite junkie when my glove 🙄

But whatever, you die from AIDS looking like a total mess anyway, not like someone who actually lived life on the edge 😈

Susan Martin24 said:I wish I could say that—at least then I'd know I caught some actual disease while out having fun, rather than picking up something while trying to patch together some broken, high-as-a-kite junkie's mess when my glove ripped 🙄

Good grief, are you being for real right now or just messing with me?😕

Are you kidding me???😲
I’m always dead serious about this stuff.🧐

So you’re telling me you ripped your glove and caught some kind of illness on the job? Honestly, talk about a stroke of luck—and by luck, I mean a total disaster. Here I was thinking my life was a struggle, but clearly, I’ve been living in a fantasy land compared to you.

No wayyyyy!!!!! 😲 That whole thing about wearing gloves was purely hypothetical 🙄
🙏 🙂 🙂 🙂

What "black disease"? I don't have Hepatitis C or HIV, thank God, but if we're talking hypothetically, I could probably catch something at my job a few times over before your average gay guy does—I work a job where my hands are basically elbow-deep in someone else's blood all day 😈

I get tested regularly and I’m a blood donor because I know how vital it is and there just isn't any substitute. It just struck me that some of the guidelines in those official manuals are seriously discriminatory, like that rule where they permanently ban anyone from donating blood just because they've had a single homosexual encounter once.

And maybe we’ll just get a little wicked and expose to the whole damn world exactly where all that donated blood money is actually flowing 😈

When it comes to exports, it’s basically 😈

Oh, sure, as if they’d actually step up to help people again—instead, most of our funding just gets swallowed up by immunology research and testing reagents.

Linda Hernandez15 said:If you start out with someone of the same sex and then move on to the opposite, that doesn't just make you promiscuous—it makes you indecisive.😬

Someone might be indecisive, sure. But let’s say you were just experimenting during your teens and had one homosexual encounter—that’s it. You're disqualified from donating blood for life after that.

Regarding the screening questions, I've donated nearly 20 times now. As far as I can recall, those questions have definitely been part of the process for the last six or seven years... actually, they've been there since I started donating.

Arslan said:Statistically, it’s justified. The risk of HIV transmission is significantly higher among homosexual men. We can debate whether it's due to minor injuries during exchange or if that logic fails for those in stable, monogamous relationships, but the numbers don't lie.

Ehm, what if I just got back from a vacation in Bangkok, where I drank myself into a stupor every night and woke up in a different bed every morning without even remembering how I got there? Do they ask blood donors about that?

What if my wife cheated on me with some guy, and I’ve been living with HIV this whole time without knowing?

Or what if I cut myself while diving in Kenya and got infected during a hospital procedure?

The questions should be open-ended, like: "In the last three months, have you engaged in any activities that increased your risk of HIV exposure?" followed by a list of potential scenarios.

@secundo: They’re asking about promiscuity. And sex workers.