EU court restricts bans on gay blood donors

[mister max 18,480]

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/04/ecj-rules-to-ease-lifetime-ban-against-blood-donation-from-homos-xuals.php

 

so what do youthink?

Ithink its weird and discriminating to gay people that the law just not get banned,

there are hiv tests for smth tbh

Also due the high demant of blood, i only think it would be positive

[Melech 9,900]

well

[i medici 1,746]

Well i don't really care i'm not thinking of donating blood. Bu I can't deny it's a bit dicriminating. 

[hmm 979]

It's definitely not racist to gay people, but there are good arguments on either side of the debate and personally - the idea that it's discrimination to gay people (or those who engage in MSM or a--l s-x in general) shouldn't come into it. The primary concern should always be the health of the recipient. 

That being said; lifetime bans are unduly harsh and I'm pretty sure the courts in Europe ruled against the lifetime ban here (unless as a last resort)

[mister max 18,480]

​Gay isn't a race  

 

OT: And yeah, I hate that gay people can't donate blood  It would be a good thing if they could because it would mean more blood, which potentially means more lives being saved.

Oops Sorry i meaned discriminating (if thats how you write it)

[RAMROD 117,125]

Well, let's look at the bright side,

that these people cannot blame the gays as the scapegoat when 1:1000 chance of.them contracting HIV from blood transfusion actually happen, because it have been in the past.

[boobtank 9,090]

It's definitely not racist to gay people, but there are good arguments on either side of the debate.

​

[NewYorkCity 10,536]

It's definitely not racist to gay people, but there are good arguments on either side of the debate.

What is the good argument to the no-gay side of the debate?

[Pop 4,541]

This was a horribly homophobic rule because it stems from the idea that all gay men have AIDS or some other STD.

[hmm 979]

What is the good argument to the no-gay side of the debate?

​Lazy answer here but some of the comments here are pretty informative   http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/349qcj/european_court_of_justice_ban_on_gay_men_giving/

"No screening is 100% accurate. A lot of the patients who receive blood are immunocompromised therefore the smallest viral load can cause death. Depending on the region where you live, there is not a shortage of blood, so why take the risk."

"People may not be aware of some of the restrictions about donating blood. there are many different reasons why people will not be able to donate blood other than s-xuality. If you have been to certain parts of Europe during certain parts of the 80's and 90's you will not be able to donate because of risk of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease."

"We only use male donations for platelets and plasma. We only use imported plasma for products intended for individuals born after 1996 (the risk of vCJD lives on). Current stats I have: statistical modelling suggests that in the UK 1 HIV-infected donation will slip by us every 2.9 years."

Under UK equality acts, "discrimination can be justified if the person who's discriminating against you can show it’s a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." whereby the "the health, safety and welfare of individuals" is legitimate. That's a pretty fair definition and exemption in my opinion, I'm not sure why I added that though cus I've lost my trail of thought :rip: 

There's obviously plenty of arguments for the 'pro-gay' side here too but unlike with same s-x marriage or other 'gay' issues, this has the very real health element added to it on top of the usual social and political elements. 

[faux 2,190]

what about people who don't come out  they'll just take their blood without knowing so this ban seems useless and stupid??

[NewYorkCity 10,536]

​Lazy answer here but some of the comments here are pretty informative   http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/349qcj/european_court_of_justice_ban_on_gay_men_giving/

"No screening is 100% accurate. A lot of the patients who receive blood are immunocompromised therefore the smallest viral load can cause death. Depending on the region where you live, there is not a shortage of blood, so why take the risk."

"People may not be aware of some of the restrictions about donating blood. there are many different reasons why people will not be able to donate blood other than s-xuality. If you have been to certain parts of Europe during certain parts of the 80's and 90's you will not be able to donate because of risk of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease."

"We only use male donations for platelets and plasma. We only use imported plasma for products intended for individuals born after 1996 (the risk of vCJD lives on). Current stats I have: statistical modelling suggests that in the UK 1 HIV-infected donation will slip by us every 2.9 years."

Those don't answer me on why gay people shouldn't donate blood...

[RAMROD 117,125]

what about people who don't come out  they'll just take their blood without knowing so this ban seems useless and stupid??

Then.Lord help us 

[AlphaMonster 1,806]

I don't understand the logic of these rules. I thought they are checking donated blood for diseases no matter what.

Honestly, like Turkish Red Crescent came to my high school last year, including me so many volunteered to donate blood initially, but only 5% of volunteers were able to donate probably. 

These blood donation restriction is not only limited to MSM. You should not be wearing a piercing, have had unprotected s-x in last month(not sure if month or week), or have drank alcohol in last week etc etc...

[hmm 979]

Those don't answer me on why gay people shouldn't donate blood...

​In most jurisdictions where the ban exists, it's against those who engage in MSM, not "gay people" per se. 

As to whether or not they answer your question - it's obvious the first quote is making an implication to HIV, with the other two quotes being evidence of "discrimination" towards other groups of people donating blood and also the stats of HIV 'slipping through' in a highly developed country. I wasn't picking out the best arguments, just the first three that I saw  

Also, a lot of articles are sensationalising and even misconstruing the court's decision, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=164021&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=49809 The above is a direct link to the ruling itself, which is an interesting but tad wordy read.