Ethical discussion about blood donation.

[Flare]

So after reading an article about a man rejected from giving blood becase he seemed gay (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/man-says-rejected-blood-bank-seeming-gay-151627659.html), I noticed a friend of mine (who is gay) made a facebook post stating that he was giving blood and alluded to the fact that he lied during the candidate screening phase.

I am just really conflicted about this. I know the supply of blood products can get to critical levels and that the blood gets screened anyway for diseases and that just because you are gay doesn't mean you are hiv+. So a large part of me says that it's an unnecessary and outdated edict put forth by the FDA 30-some years ago. But I also understand the basis of concern and of course I have a problem with people lying. The lying is probably bothering me more than anything else.

Is it time for the FDA to put this rule to rest? Wouldn't it help the already streeched thin blood supply? Or is the overall picture of the risky lifestyle of homosexual men too much of a liability.

[blondy2061h, MSN, RN]

Actually we should not be screening pt's based on sexual preference. If we can test the blood for blood born pathogens like HIV, who cares if they are a gay man or a promiscuous heterosexual? In a day and age where all you hear about is how short the blood bank is for various blood types, our country would be wise to quit excluding 100,000's of perfectly healthy members of society.

There's a latent period where the blood can test negative and still be positive. A small, but real, risk.