“Does it concern you that the U.S. government is considering eliminating the now existing ban against blood donation by any man who has had homosexual sex?”
Here is how they responded:
92 Percent Concerns me, a ban is a prudent policy
8 Percent No concerns here
0 Percent Can’t decide
In the U.S. the HIV/AIDS prevalence rate for men who have sex with other men (MSM) is 60 times higher than the general population. As the vast majority of the UFI readers have indicated, the policy banning any man who has had had homosexual sex from donating blood is indeed prudent. Particularly when you consider that the incidents of “false negatives” in any given screening test is always a concern. A screening test for HIV/AIDS that gives a “false negative” has life-threatening repercussions for those who might receive a transfusion from that blood.
It is not “homophobia” or a desire to discriminate against MSM that drives the ban on blood donation, but a desire to protect the donor blood supply of a nation. If there’s a shortage of blood, as supporters of the removal of the ban claim, then let’s do a major public service campaign to increase donations from the rest of the population. “Safety before political correctness” should prevail.
For clarification and answers to the FDA’s policy on blood donation, visit this link:
You can also see a list of nations of the world and their policies on blood donation, click here.