blood donations
I heard something this morning that shocked me. I was completely unaware of it, and maybe I’m the only one. But it all seemed so backwards to me. I was aware that you can’t donate blood for various reasons, like if you’ve recently gotten a tattoo or ever used intravenous drugs, etc. But apparently as 1985, if you are a male who has had sex with another male since 1977 you are completely banned from ever giving blood. Not unprotected sex specifically. Just sex. Is *all* homosexual activity still considered risky behavior? I guess if you are a healthy, gay man who has been in a long-term, committed, monogamous relationship, they still don’t want your blood. Nevermind the shortage that they are always talking about.
I can understand the hysteria that probably put this restriction into practice in the mid-80s, but I don’t understand why it’s still practiced over 20 years later. Why aren’t heterosexuals who have had unprotected not banned from donating blood? And how do we know people are going to disclose all of their personal information? I don’t remember ever having to take an oath before donating blood.
You can read about it here: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1624742,00.html
Any thoughts on the matter?
1 Comment »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
yeah, I don’t get that at all. They have to screen all the blood they get anyway, right? I don’t see what the big deal is. shortage? What shortage? What if no one donated until the rule changed? Then what?
I’d like to think that if you’re kind enough to donate blood, that you’re probably going to disclose your past info. But, maybe not. Maybe someone is donating maliciously, in which case, i suppose they wouldn’t divulge. It’s just another example of how the stigma of homosexuality affects us all. With the rate of HIV infection being highest in black 20 something females, are they going to ban donations from them and anyone who’s ever had a sexual relationship with a black woman? Probably not, but what’s the difference?