Low-risk gay and bisexual men and takatāpui could potentially donate blood safely and sooner than after three months. On the other hand, many individual gay men practice safe sex consistently, or are in steady relationships, and their chance of having contracted HIV in the last few days or weeks prior to donating blood is negligible. In Aotearoa, HIV transmission is concentrated among gay and bisexual men and takatāpui who, as a group, are approximately 873 times more likely than a heterosexual person to contract HIV.
![can gay men donate blood 2018 can gay men donate blood 2018](https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/jaybloodbag-91aa0fb2-8579-4032-9f77-1646e938f75d.jpg)
The second challenge is the “epidemiological conundrum”. They want policies that are as fair as possible and view gay blood bans in a context of historic alienation, discrimination and poorer mental health for Rainbow communities. These are individuals who are often highly engaged. The policy can fuel inaccurate stereotypes about gay men being reckless, and plays into a wider sense of exclusion from important health and cultural institutions that many gay men already experience.Īlthough 20 percent of all potential blood donors are deferred for various reasons, gay and bisexual men often feel singled out. However, rejection from blood donation denies them access to these social benefits and can be stigmatising. Society portrays donating blood as a valued civic act imbued with high moral status, and many gay and bisexual men want to donate to help others and perform an important duty of citizenship. The first is the “social good conundrum”. But it still prevents, unnecessarily, many low risk gay and bisexual men and takatāpui (Māori gay and bisexual men) from donating life-saving blood.įurther improvements can be made to the policy by tackling two broad conundrums. It addresses the view of some gay and bisexual men that their ongoing exclusion from blood donation is unjust, unscientific and inconsistent with current HIV prevention approaches. It means Aotearoa New Zealand has one of the least restrictive deferral policies in the world, along with Canada and the US. The change reflects evidence that a three-month deferral period will not increase risk to blood recipients. One of these behaviours is sex between men due to the ongoing HIV epidemic. The New Zealand Blood Service has reduced the period people must wait before they donate blood from 12 months to three, following certain behaviours. So-called “gay blood bans” are controversial internationally but change is on the way. It has to change, writes Dr Peter Saxton. The politics of this issue are immaterial to me, as it's not a right to donate blood, nor do I care strongly enough about the issue for me to crusade as though it's a right.The ongoing exclusion of gay and bisexual men donating blood is seen as unjust, unscientific and inconsistent with current HIV prevention approaches. I actually don't have a stance on this other than the medical community should do what's in the best interests of the patients. That's the direction I was going with this. Of that 10%, what percentage of them are monogamous or have had a small number of partners (guys who have LTRs instead of casual affairs)? Of the gay/bisexual men who are not sexually active, what percentage of them have HIV and don't know it? What are the statistics relating to gay/bisexual women? Whatever those numbers are, is that number significantly high enough to introduce that risk into the blood donation pool? I don't know the answers to those questions, particularly when weighed against the risk of not getting the blood at all. Click to expand.The article is saying that roughly 1 in 10 gay/bisexual men that are sexually active have HIV and don't know it (taken from 1 in 5 sexually active gay/bisexual men have HIV, and almost half don't know it).