I recently had a (leftist) friend on Facebook tell us that he'd just made his 72nd blood donation. He lamented the 'discrimination' at play. I don't think it had to do with the rules regarding recent tattoos or piercings or recent travel, or medications used, previous disease, hospital stays or any of the myriad reasons why a blood donation may be refused. It was in regards to the rules around gay men.
A few people piped in, supporting the friend's notion that the system discriminates. Of course, as a I am what I am and as the resident Conservative amoung his 'friends', I had to stick my oar in.
My post follows:
Perhaps we can consider that the rules are there not for political or personal reasons but for reasons of safety and after cost-benefit risk analysis AND considering the perception of the public for whom the blood system is for. Even if AIDS infection rates were the same with gay men as with the rest of the public, (I don't claim to be an authority on such things) the perception that it might not be might compel people to not accept donations or worse, not donate at all. Like many things, perception IS reality. Sorry, but the viability of the system is more important than some ruffled feathers. Why is my right to safety less important than someone else's 'right' to not be offended? 'Political Correctness' be damned. Not EVERYTHING is supposed to be a Charter Right.
Now, if there is no higher risk by allowing gay men to donate, then great! Educate the public, then change the rules. We CAN be an enlightened bunch. I suspect that in this era of falling all over ourselves appeasing special interest groups, we'd have done this already if the stats told us to or even if the stats could be distorted enough to tell us to.
'Discriminating' does not equal 'discrimination' every time.
