Is it right to ban gays from donating blood?
In case you don't know, gay men cannot donate blood (what a shocker). For many blood donation organizations, this includes a lifetime ban for all gay men who have performed any sexual acts in the past. Ever. The reason is that there is a fear of AIDS. At the same time, however, a straight man who has been forcibly raped by another man can donate blood again in his life, sometimes as soon as 1 year after the incident.
Yes, there are STDs/diseases
Side Score: 0
|
No, it's immoral/prejudiced
Side Score: 17
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
Are you kidding me? Every month they send out appeals saying that people aren't donating enough blood... and all the while they're contributing to the problem by banning 5-15% of the population from donating. They're supposed to test everyone before deciding whether or not they could donate anyway, so if anybody had AIDS they'd figure it out. And it's not like only gay men get AIDS - even people who aren't sexually active can get it, hence the importance of always testing first. This sounds like pure prejudice, hidden under a flimsy excuse. There are times when I can accept a little prejudice under the name of personal freedom, but when it's putting people's health and lives in danger it is horrendous. Side: No it's plain stupid
Many blood collectors test their blood for STDs and illnesses, or at least have the capability to do so. On top of this, they could easily require a man to get tested for HIV (the main cause for this ban) to certify he is no contaminated. And even if this all fails, HIV is transmitted to only one out of 2 million people from a blood transfusion. Yes, this is still "some" people, but the chances of a man being tested for HIV and resulting in a false negative and then that blood actually infecting a patient are astronomically small- much too small to ban an entire community from helping out in a part of the medical world that needs them. Side: No, it's immoral/prejudiced
1
point
1
point
0
points
0
points
|