@Noughty:
And I also heard that it was because of a higher disease rate statistically. That was decided a long time ago, so this should be reviewed.
True, but misleadingā¦ The CDC[nb]Centre for Disease Control[/nb] (Winnipeg, Manitoba) quarterly report released July 2001 noted that within North America, the largest group to be affected by communicable disease was actually that of the heterosexual female, when all such diseases were taken into account. What's more interesting is that the report went on to state that the only one single category that had a higher risk and infection rating among gay men was that of HIV, however although the infection rate for HIV was highest in gay men, by April 2001, on a global scale, both the infection rate for HIV as well as the highest population of infected persons with HIV were actually that of the heterosexual female.
On this simple fact alone, one could argue that although this point holds true within North America for HIV infection rates only, imposing such a restriction would be branding being gay as a societal taboo. When all things get taken into account, HIV is not the only potentially life threatening infection out there. Two of the other life threatening and often over-looked diseases to beware of are Hepatitis C and Herpes, both of which are statistically more likely to occur in a heterosexual. With Hepatitis C in particular, it is also noted that the hardest hit category is the intervenes drug user, which holds absolutely no co-relation whatsoever to sexual orientation. Since there is no causal link between being a heroin user for example and being a gay man, that again is a gist that such legislation needs to be examined a little more closely.
I'm not saying that I'm against having certain rules in place for gay men, however I believe that such rules need to be based on scientific fact, and not misconception or out-dated information, which no longer holds any validity. Such examples include if you're an MSM[nb]Men who Sleep with Menā¦ These are not necessarily gay men, as not all persons who fit into the category of MSM identify as being gay.[/nb] for example, it would make logical sense that a screening be done for HIV prior to being allowed to donate blood. By the same token, if you're in intervenes drug user for example, it would also make sense to impose a rule to screen for HIV and Hepatitis C prior to being allowed to donate blood. These rules would be based solely on the fact that persons who meet those criteria are statistically most likely to become infected with those diseases, therefore for safety reasons, tests must be conducted in order to ensure the safety of the blood.
The whole thing of not allowing an MSM to donate blood solely for the fact that they are an MSM makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since there are ways that currently exist for making sure such a procedure is safe to perform before doing so, and otherwise denying MSM's the ability to donate blood only further reduces the availability of valuable resources that are always in demand. Why is it that people often linger in fear of a stigma created by ignorance when a little proper education on such subjects would prove to be more valuable in the end?
