One person can truly make a difference in the life of another. I have believed that my entire life. However, I've only been donating blood to the American Red Cross for the past year since I was eligible. When I decided to donate I researched just how much of an impact my choice would make. I found out that every two seconds someone in the United States needs blood, but only 5% of the eligible population donate in any given year. Also with every donation of blood I made, I could help save up to three lives. (You can find this information on The American Red Cross website at www.givelife.org )
Each unit of blood is then tested after donation for different diseases listed below.
| Test | Disease |
| Antibodies to Trypanosoma cruzi | Chagas' Disease |
ABO blood type
Rh determination
Red cell antibody detection | n/a/ |
| HIV-1/2 Antibody test | HIV/ AIDS |
| Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) | HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C |
| Hepatitis C Anti-HCV | Hepatitis C |
| Hepatitis B Surface Antigen test | Hepatitis B |
| Hepatitis B Core Antibody |
| Syphilis Serologic test | Syphilis |
| HTLV -I/II Antibody | Human T-cell Lymphotropic Virus (HTLV) |
| NAT for WNV | West Nile Virus (WNV) |
(This chart was taken from The American Red Cross website at www.givelife.org)
So why is it then that gay men can't donate to the American Red Cross? Before giving blood men are asked if they have had sex, even once, with another man since 1977 (women are asked if they have has sex with a man who has had sex, even once, with another man since 1977). Those who say yes are permanently banned from donating.
I realize there still may be a stereotype on the gay population about having HIV/AIDs but I find only ignorant people assuming that. Since every single and individual unit of blood is tested, why does the American Red Cross flat out refuse to accept their blood?
Am I missing a big piece of the puzzle or is the American Red Cross discriminating against gays?
Comments (393)
Obvious discrimination; they want to find a way to cut down the number of units they have to test I suppose. In short they don't give a fuck about human lives.
Blood is blood, as long as it is disease-free. Red Cross cannot justify refusing people on the basis of their sexual orientation with any practical reasons. I'm so sure a person would rather die of blood loss than receive clean, "gay" blood. Give me a break.
I believe its discrimination and it's pretty upsetting! If the HIV/AIDS test is already standard then there's no reason why gay men should be automatically refused! I heard that HIV/AIDS is affecting straight people also but maybe the Red Cross missed that piece of info.
Since donor blood is very needed I don't think organizations such as the Red Cross have a right to turn someone a way without the test proving their blood is infected with something! I can't help but think that many people who need donor blood might not care if the blood they receive if from a clean gay individual. It's actually upsetting to think about all the clean blood that could save lives but discrimination and stereotypes are stopping it.
I'm glad you submitted this! I don't think many people know about this issue!
So if you had sex w/a man in 1976 would it be okay to give blood? (wtf?)
American Red Cross is discriminating against gays. And when I go to college for film making I plan to make a documentary on it that will open the truth up to all of America! I freaking hate those people and they are on my to-do list of large groups of people that I wish to cause society to have a poor opinion of.
i'm not sure. i think if you asked a representative/someone who knows the details there might be more reason behind it than we know. and i gave blood once and i can't anymore because my blood pressure is so low that last time i passed out, hit my head, and had to get 34 stitches... and now i'm basically needle-phobic. :(
Technically, it's not discrimination because there is a higher risk of HIV/AIDS infection in gay men and since the HIV test is not 100% accurate (nothing is) then it is safer for Red Cross to not accept the blood of this group. Similar to restrictions on those who travel due to increased risk of malaria and other regional diseases, it's to protect the people who receive the blood. It would be terrible for someone who got a simple transfusion to become infected with HIV because one slipped through the test.
I'm not saying it's right, but that's the reasoning behind it.
No, its not discrimination. Gays in america are more likely to have those diseases, chances are they just don't trust their tests very much, because they've already been sued for giving people blood that was contaminated. They just don't want to take the risk until they know the tests are good enough. Its not like they're refusing to give gays blood, they're just being cautious about giving other people blood from gays.
If it was discrimination, why would there be a time limit to go along with it? That doesn't make sense. There's probably a perfectly good reason for the question; and how do you even know that they're automatically "banned" for answering yes?
Are they "discriminating" against people who visit the countries they asked about too? Are they "discriminating" against people with tattoos and piercings? No. They're taking a safety precaution.
This post is ridiculous.
we've been over this before. Gay men are more likely to have HIV/AIDS. They can save some money by blocking gay men, good for them.
Haha, the title made me laugh.
I don't see why they won't accept blood from sexually active gay men if they're testing for HIV/AIDS anyway. It is true that they would probably get more positives on that test, but don't you think the trade-off of getting more units of blood is worth it? Perhaps it isn't though. It does cost them time and money for each unit they take and test so getting more HIV-positive units would be a waste that could outweigh the benefits. However I think that they should trust people more when they say that they aren't HIV positive. Why would someone who knows that they are HIV-positive go in to give blood? To mess with the system or something? Even if they are lying, their blood is still going to get tested anyway.
In a medical point of view, I don't see anything wrong. The gay question is the same as the question about going to Africa in the past. What, are you going to say that red cross are discriminating against gay people AND people with jungle fever?
@John_of_the_bloomdocks@xanga - Minorities also have a higher percentage of people with disease, as do those living in urban areas. Does this mean that we should only accept blood from white people who live on farms?
I really hope you answered no, or simply rolled your eyes to that (rhetorical) question.
Fact is, as of eight years ago, the chances of acquiring HIV, for example, through transfusion were one in 2.5 million, according to Wikipedia.
Anyway, great article. One people need to hear. Kudos.
@John_of_the_bloomdocks@xanga - Dude, anyone can have AIDS- gay or straight. It's not a sexual orientation specific disease. They aren't any more or less likely to have it as anyone else. If you've had sex, you could get it. Simple as that.
I think it's discrimination. Yeah, there is mention of the time limit, that I don't really get. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, esp if they're already testing to AIDS/HIV, and we all know that straight people can get AIDS just as readily as a gay person can. It's just flat out stupid.
Yeah I don't think i tshould matter if you're gay or not. And yes, anyone can get AIDS, so all of those straight people that they are letting donate may have AIDS. Since they test, they'll figure it out anyway...
I haven't donated since 2005 when some lady over shot my vein and I bleed everywhere and missed my bio class because I had blood all over my shirt and pants. Perhaps the next time I donate it won't be at the same American Red Cross...:-/
@adept_of_chaos@xanga - Haha that's what I was thinking...does the year difference really make or break the process?
it makes me sick. straight males are just as likely (if not more so) to be infected with something.
I wondered that too, I gave blood last year for the first time I was shocked when they asked. I thought they were suppose to check the blood they take from ppl. Blood is blood, I dont care as long as the blood is clean.
Actually, I'm sure in the 80's when aids was first getting public attention and a few ppl got bad blood transfers (before they started screening for hiv) someone got sued and a stupid rule was born.
It's not discrimination, it's just stupid rules and regulations set up that are made to supposedly help us. But, it's stupid anyway bc blood is blood.
It's dumb discrimination.
@BunnyParfait@xanga - they won't take blood from someone under 110 pounds, because it woudl be unhealthy to take that much from someone so small. and i don't get why they can't combine the same blood type of two different people then. oh i guess red cross doesn't have the time for that!
ok i understand that being gay means im more lily to have hiv but if i get tested and im in a monogamous relationship why should i still fall under this dumb rule
@Neowind@xanga - but they refuse blood! that could save a life!