The issue of whether or not gay men should give blood has always been a hot-button topic, but it's about to go on the front burner once again.
After being reviewed in 2000 and 2006, people are once again debating whether or not gay men should be denied the opportunity to give blood. As it stands, the regulation is that any man who has had sex with another man after 1977 is denied from giving blood because gay men are more likely to be exposed to H.I.V. than heterosexuals are.
Scientists say that it's not a gay rights issue, but simply an issue of safety. Basically, they say that the facts are the facts, and although it may sound prejudice, there's still a risk that allowing gay men to donate blood might contaminate the blood supply.
Now, I think it's important to mention that the following factors still have no bearing on whether or not gay men can give blood:
- If they've been tested for H.I.V.
- If they're only been with one man in a monogamous relationship
- If they use protection when they have sex
If you're gay and sexually active, you're out.
This is only because there is a higher prevalence for gay men to have H.I.V., but at the same time, it completely discounts that there are heterosexuals who have unsafe sex and/or have H.I.V.
If you're straight, you're in.
In addition to all of this, there's absolutely no way of knowing whether or not anybody who gives blood is being honest regarding their sexual practices or their health.
So by making all these distinctions about who can give blood and who can't, the scientists who advocate against gays giving blood are only stirring up controversy..
... Basically for nothing.
Why not just say "if you have unsafe sex, don't give blood." That doesn't offend anybody but people who have unsafe sex, and I'm sure nobody's worried about upsetting them.
What we have now is a target on gay men. The blood has to be tested anyway. Scientists say there's a two-week period between someone contracting H.I.V. where if they're tested for it, it might still show up negative.
Again though, that could apply to ANYONE.
Almost everyone agrees that the risk of the blood supply being contaminated is incredibly small. In the early days of H.I.V., there was a much bigger risk of someone contracting the virus through a blood transfusion, but we know so much more now than we did then.
Unfortunately, not all of our policies have caught up with the times yet.
After being reviewed in 2000 and 2006, people are once again debating whether or not gay men should be denied the opportunity to give blood. As it stands, the regulation is that any man who has had sex with another man after 1977 is denied from giving blood because gay men are more likely to be exposed to H.I.V. than heterosexuals are.
Scientists say that it's not a gay rights issue, but simply an issue of safety. Basically, they say that the facts are the facts, and although it may sound prejudice, there's still a risk that allowing gay men to donate blood might contaminate the blood supply.
Now, I think it's important to mention that the following factors still have no bearing on whether or not gay men can give blood:
- If they've been tested for H.I.V.
- If they're only been with one man in a monogamous relationship
- If they use protection when they have sex
If you're gay and sexually active, you're out.
This is only because there is a higher prevalence for gay men to have H.I.V., but at the same time, it completely discounts that there are heterosexuals who have unsafe sex and/or have H.I.V.
If you're straight, you're in.
In addition to all of this, there's absolutely no way of knowing whether or not anybody who gives blood is being honest regarding their sexual practices or their health.
So by making all these distinctions about who can give blood and who can't, the scientists who advocate against gays giving blood are only stirring up controversy..
... Basically for nothing.
Why not just say "if you have unsafe sex, don't give blood." That doesn't offend anybody but people who have unsafe sex, and I'm sure nobody's worried about upsetting them.
What we have now is a target on gay men. The blood has to be tested anyway. Scientists say there's a two-week period between someone contracting H.I.V. where if they're tested for it, it might still show up negative.
Again though, that could apply to ANYONE.
Almost everyone agrees that the risk of the blood supply being contaminated is incredibly small. In the early days of H.I.V., there was a much bigger risk of someone contracting the virus through a blood transfusion, but we know so much more now than we did then.
Unfortunately, not all of our policies have caught up with the times yet.
Comments
Post a Comment