The hell? Because of a potential risk of HIV. They screen everything anyways, and I can't imagine that a gay guy wouldn't use a condom... AIDS just f**ks up your life, and no-one wants that.

It all smacks of the dark days of the 80s when people truly believed that you could get AIDS from spit, toilet seats and hugging.

At the time, it was new and the panic was understandable, if not acceptable. But to hear that sort of attitude persists in a medical organisation in this day and age is shocking.

As a comic recently put it, "I'd rather have a blood transfusion from Stephen Fry than Russell Brand."

(Russell Brand is an comedian who famously, or infamously, has had a lot of sex with a lot of different women. I hopefully don't have to explain who Mr Fry is).

Yep, totally agreed there. The bit that really gets me is that they need the transfusions, but won't accept them. If I were to go there, they wouldn't let me donate blood? I'm (understandably) a little pissed off at this.

I know that the Red Cross has some archaic rules to deny donations as well... I had a friend who painted a fingernail black for a halloween party... the next day he was in line for a donation at our college and not only was he turned away for having a black fingernail, he was BANNED FOR LIFE from donating due to "suspicion of witchcraft/devil-worship".... I wish to god I was making this up...

The Red Cross is extremely picky.

If you've ever been to Haiti
If you've ever traveled to certain parts of Africa
If you've ever taken medication for Malaria (whether you got it or not)
etc...

Those are the less embarrassing questions.

Others include your sexual history.

You still get a "I tried" sticker, but you don't get to give blood.

I have given over a gallon, but I cut some brush and got some scratches on my arms from the thorns and such. The Blood mobile folks said "Thanks, but came back later."

Hmmm...

I don't remember ever seeing any questions about devil worship.

If you've ever ingested other people's blood, they get worried though.

Some data here:



Article quote:
The total number of people diagnosed with AIDS in the USA
is over one million. This total increases by around 40,000 each year.

Around 48% of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 18% of the total. Since the beginning of the epidemic, the number of heterosexual infections has increased dramatically. According to CDC estimates, heterosexual contact led to about one third of new AIDS diagnoses and one third of new HIV diagnoses in 2006.

No... no questions about devil worship, but aparently you can tell a satanist by their single black fingernail...

I'm British, but live in the USA.
The USA won't let me give blood because I spend a few years in England in the 80s. (Mad Cow Risk)
England won't let me give blood because I've been in the USA (West Nile Virus).
That annoys me.

In the USA, if you are a male and you've ever had sex with a man, you can't give blood. If you have served your country in Iraq, you can't give blood. If you've ever injected drugs, you can't give blood. If you've ever had heterosexual sex for money, you can't give blood.

If you made some poor decisions 30 years ago, you can't give blood. It frustrates me that they don't care if you have HIV or not. They just want to punish you for what you've done in the past.

Sometimes I really wonder if a boycott of giving blood until they update these stupid laws might actually help people in the long run, though the short-term consequences would be tragic.

This was posted a few months ago, too, and is even more disturbing:

no ... they're not trying to punish you, the willing donor. they're punishing the people who'd really benefit from a blood donation.

are there really strict rules for receiving blood, as there are for giving blood?

I think they just don't want it to talk to straight blood and make it wear dresses and flow all funny like.

Do they stop people who are highly promiscuous from giving blood too. There seems to be a common perception that all gay people sleep around and engage in unsafe safe.

While I'm sure a percentage do as do a percentage of heterosexual people I seriously can't believe that homosexuals are going to be a bigger health risk then the huge number of heterosexual people who sleep around a lot.

I live pretty close to a party town, by the sea with loads of clubs and a huge nightlife. It's being hailed as "little Ibiza" and it's a common joke that if you can't get laid in this town during summer you can't get laid anywhere and it's the same the world over. I think singling out gay people like this smacks of prejudice and hysteria.

As for AID's being spread by gay people what about the huge AID's epidemic in Africa, is that because there's a big gay population there?!

No, that is because it's believed that having unprotected sex with a virgin can cure a man of AIDS.

Since there is a bad stigma attached with not being a virgin, it's not uncommon for lots of people to have sex with the same person for this reason, all thinking that the girl is a virgin--and, of course, futher spreading HIV.

One of the problems with refusing blood from gay people, is the false sense of security it gives heterosexual people.

Another problem is heterosexual people not donating blood because they hang on to this ridiculous rule, which is offensive to their fellow world citizens.

Blood is Business
Business means Money
Money means f**k the people, I want paid.


It is not about the risk, it is about them doing everything they can to keep costs down, this includes testing donated blood. Keep in mind the people involved in the business of blood dragged their feet on testing donated blood when Gay Cancer, as it was being called along with a dozen other horrible names, came about in the 80's was a business decision, not a caring for mankind one. People became infected and died, because someone was concerned about the bottom line.



As for Africa and it's HUGE AIDS problem, a very very large part of that has to do with a man who wears a funny hat and belongs to one of the richest companies in the world.

Now thats really just excessive. It is mainly about the bottom line, but in this case their bottom line is cutting out high risk bood across the board as it lowers the cost of testing and lowers the probability of bad blood getting through. Take the rules about living in England or Germany, or any number of foreign countries. they wont let you give blood because the only way to check for that disease is a freaking BRAIN BIOPSY. So, yeah, give your blood and a small sample of brain matter. And actually yes, they do turn away heterosexual people based on the numbers of partners you have had.

Some of these diseases are extremely expensive or impossible to blood test for. They are doing what they can in the best way they can come up with to ensure that they don't cause more harm than good. I do, however, think that this rule needs to be reevaluated, as we're no longer in the 80's.

Their is a huge outcry over this, but imagine the panic over infected blood.

That's more angry nonsense than fact. Here's a link with some good info about HIV and the difficult problems in dealing with it.

Here's a small quote from the article pertaining to blood:

"In the late 1960's haemophiliacs also began to benefit from the blood clotting properties of a product called Factor VIII. However, to produce this coagulant, blood from hundreds of individual donors had to be pooled. This meant that a single donation of HIV+ blood could contaminate a huge batch of Factor VIII. This put thousands of haemophiliacs all over the world at risk of HIV, and many subsequently became infected with the virus."

So the risk in this case would be the missing of just one unit of contaminated bllod. That's a risk not worth taking.

1. They do not turn away anyone for how many sexual partners you have had, sorry I am in the gallons club when it comes to donation of blood and I have NEVER been asked how many people I have slept with at all. (if they did I would be screwed)

2. My point is about infected blood, they LET infected blood out there because of the cost of testing vs. profits.

Keep in mind, I am speaking of the US, not any other country.

They seem to frown on cancer and cancer treatment as well. My blood, it is no good to them.