Would You Take Blood from a Gay Person?

Is Gay Blood Tainted with HIV?

 That IS the million dollar question that the FDA is now trying to decide. Many Americans fear that gay\homosexual blood is tainted with HIV and have just concerns about receiving blood donated by a gay person. Gay's, of course, claim their blood is totally safe. Now comes the one of many cases indicating otherwise.

Kathy Darbison was pro gay regarding civil rights. She is a straight college professor until her husband received contaminated blood and then died of AIDS. Before all of the horror began to unfold, she also contracted AIDs from her husband. Neither ever thought the blood was tainted and was from a gay. Neither thought it mattered. Both thought that the Red Cross and others screened the blood donations for such things. Both were dead wrong. She is now sick and slowly dying from AIDS.

For the past 25 years, the FDA has banned any blood donations from gay men in order to prevent AIDS from spreading. Such a ban is logical given their lifestyle, yet the homosexuals claim the ban unfairly stigmatizes gay men. So what. Obviously, gay blood did get into the system of blood supply and despite more advanced tests, still presents a danger.  The issue is question 34 on the blood donation form the donor fills out. The question is simply:

"From 1977 to present, have you had any sexual contact with another male, even once?"

Gay men have their panties all tied up over this question because it stigmatizes them as outcasts and in bad light. Excuse me, would a gay man or woman like to get tainted blood from one of their comrades?  I doubt it. Would anyone like to get a blood transfusion and then die from AIDS because the gay donor lied on the questionnaire?

Darbison, 52 yrs, was a staunch gay supporter, but no longer. In fact, she is leading the fight to keep the 25 year old regulation in effect. Does any person, gay or straight, think she is wrong or not justified?

Fact remains that gay men and bisexuals continue to have the highest rate of NEW cases of HIV infections and other STDs. Sorry, a simple medical fact. Obviously, that lifestyle has it downsides. Mark Skinner, 49, is another victim of tainted gay blood that gave him HIV, and yes, he is straight.

Gays scream about their rights for this or that, yet, ignore everyone elses. Safe blood is a public heath issue. Tainted blood must not be allowed in-ever-, even if a few are stigmatized over it because of their choice of lifestyle. If the tainted blood can infect healthy people, straight or homosexual, it is a common enemy to both. The gay community needs to "get over" this because a healthy gay, free of HIV, can get it from tainted blood.

Nowadays, getting tainted blood is real, despite tests. The best way to avoid the whole issue is to avoid getting a blood transfusion because it is playing "Russian roulette".

Scary, I know.

More by this Author

Comments 24 comments

thevoice profile image

thevoice 6 years ago from carthage ill

well asked blood that needed is checked thanks

Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 6 years ago from West By God

It isn't just HIV transmission but also Hepatitis C that is also a problem. Good article.

perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author


Alex 6 years ago

I think the question definitely needs to be refined. Instead of posting a question that just filters out all gay people who have sex, why not post a question that filters out all people who have engaged in risky, unprotected sex?

Kathy Darbison's blood came from a straight person, since gays cannot donate, and now she is taking it out on all gays.

People who know they have safe blood should be able to donate their safe blood. Why not?

perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

You are wrong about how Kathy got AIDS, her husband got tainted blood from a HIV infected gay person. The sensitivity about this from the gay community is lame. But yes, the question can be asked many ways but comes down to the same public health issue.

Alex 6 years ago

How did they trace her husband's blood to a gay person? How did they know the sexual preference of the person who donated the HIV infected blood? Or are you assuming that since the blood had HIV, the person was gay?

The question could be asked in much better ways that does not increase risk and does allow some safe homosexuals to donate. For instance, there is no risk of contracting HIV from a clean, monogamous gay couple, so there should be no reason to ban their safe blood as a public health issue.

perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

well, the FDA will just have to decide. Your point is well taken but the 25 year ban is a good precaution, better safe than sorry.

Alex 6 years ago

By you not answering my question, I am going to take that as you realize you lied, and you have no knowledge that the HIV tainted blood came from a homosexual, and that since they are banned from donating, it likely came from a heterosexual.

The 25 year ban is a good precaution, but I want a better precaution - one that actually shows it recognizes how STDs can be transmitted.

perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

Of course I have no knowledge personally, but she does the blood came from a gay man-so what. You must be gay because you blame it on a straight. Obviously, if the US gov bans gay men from donating blood, there is a whole lot of truth to it. The ban should continue.

Alex 6 years ago

How does she know the blood came from a gay man? Where did she say this? Please cite a source.

Are you saying because gay people are barred from donating, that I must be gay for reaching the logical conclusion? Sorry to burst your bubble.

Obviously, we know how STDs are transmitted, and much more about HIV than we did 25 years ago, and we know there are better bans that we could enact than the current one, which is why so many people are opposed to this.

Why don't you think the ban should be refined to actually better protect against HIV while increasing the safe blood supply?

perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

No bubble burst here. But, it is a hot topic and obviously you think there is something wrong with it, I don't. Whatever you say will not change my mind. If they create a test that guarantees no HIV can be transmitted via a blood donation, fine, lift it.

perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

There was a new strain of HIV discovered in 2006, called XMDR. The FDA is uncertain if it poses any new issues with regards to blood screening.

Alex 6 years ago

Why do you keep deleting my comment?

perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

what comment?

Springboard profile image

Springboard 6 years ago from Wisconsin

I'm not a proponent of the gay lifestyle, though I would have to comment that AIDS is not a "male homosexuals only" disease. Without some form of testing that could absolutely say without any doubt that the blood is not tainted, from ANYONE who provides it, male/female/straight/gay, we're always going to have some risk associated with a blood transfusion.

It's a bit of a tricky thing.

perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

Best policy is not to need blood.

braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Most certainly, the gay lifestyle has been a huge contributor to the spread of HIV. It has been swept under the rug because of the radical gay movement gaining ground and making it politically incorrect to call them on how their bad behavior has so endangered the public health. It is ridiculous that this foolishness is trying to pass as normal behavior. It is downright negligent for society to ignore the danger signals for our blood supply.

Alex 6 years ago

A sexually promiscuous lifestyle, whether gay or straight, black or white, is what is the sole important contributor to the spread of HIV. What we should do is encourage people toward monogamy, and reward monogamy.

I agree that nobody's sexual promiscuity should be rewarded, nor should it be considered normal. So that's why that should be the criteria for recognizing dangerous blood.

BJBenson profile image

BJBenson 6 years ago from USA

I lived overseas for ten years. So nobody wants my blood. The mad cow thing. I really hope that I don't need any body's else blood either.

Kyle 6 years ago

I mean REALLY?!?! You people are so fricking daft it hurts. Hundreds of thousands of people give blood on a daily basis. Of this number, at least 1/5 has participated in some form of bisexual activity; at least 1/15 are gay persons who do not indicate their sexual orientation to the officials taking blood; and a further percentage are straight persons who have HIV/AIDS but do not know about. The only difference which will be detected is the HIV+ vs. HIV- blood.

All gay persons DO NOT have HIV/AIDS... their blood is not tainted with some cocktial of STI's which are just waiting to "get you". Homosexuality existed looonnggg before HIV ever came around. Further i think you people should do your research and you will realise that the majority of persons with and dying of the disease are HETEROSEXUAL!!

Sometimes I wonder how people are stupid as you all know how to use the internet to post such SHIT!!

perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

Not shit at all, it is the government that bans homosexual men from giving blood. there must be some reason. It is a precaution for all. How would you feel if you got blood, then AIDS, then found out the blood originated from a gay donor, do you really think you would be calling is shit? I seriously doubt it.

alicia 6 years ago

i gotta say. that question on the blood donor questionnaire is pretty stupid. so what about the straight woman that may have been with this guy? her blood is acceptable but his isn't? sorry. i'm not buying it

perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

true, but yet, the law currently is that way.

Alex 6 years ago

"so what about the straight woman that may have been with this guy? her blood is acceptable but his isn't? sorry."

Actually, if a woman has sex with an MSM, she is banned from giving blood for only ONE YEAR. Which doesn't make sense, if a man who has sex with men can't donate ever in his lifetime due to risk of exposure that could apparently fail being tested for, why is a woman who has exposed herself to the same risk only banned for one year?

It's an inconsistent policy, of course, which is why I, and many other groups, think it should be refined.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article