That's a whole other can of worms. I grew up with a number of Tattooers and seen a lot of ups and downs. One guy at the shop might be as clean and safe as possible, and the next guy may not really care at all. A lot of shops also have a high turn over. I am not saying that no one is safe, but you can never be sure unless you can really see for yourself.

It's really not safe to give blood when you are anemic, though. The blood drive should have done a quick Hematocrit before taking your blood. Being anemic is bad enough for our immune systems, taking an other Unit could really distress our immune systems even more.

I find working the drives just as helpful, and I'm not stressing my already iron depleted body. I've seen more people pass out, and have had to call an ambulance for a few of them, when they shouldn't have been giving blood, but did anyway.

I admire your determination, to help, but I worry about your immune state as well as your iron and red blood cell levels.

What you propose is a felony - there are restrictions on blood donations for a reason. The tests they do are not 100%. AIDS and hepatitis (from piercings, tattoos & drug injections) can be early onset and at delectable but still contagious levels.

As for the issue of mad-cow from Europe, test for prions is relatively new but until blood supplies dip below demand, it's considered an necessary risk with the current balance of supply and demand.

I am completely at a loss as to why you are so anxious to put others at risk - when it's completely necessary to do so. It's not up to you to decide what's a reasonable risk - you don't have the education, knowledge or authority to do that.

Please follow the law - 'shadow' donations as you call them are not the solution.

In spite of occasionally tight supplies, I know of no case where someone needing blood did not get it.

I've heard of a handful of cases from personal stories alone where someone needed a rare blood type in short supply and they had to ask family members if they were the same blood type in order to donate. Especially when it comes to negative blood types.

And mine and others motivation is certainly not to put others at risk. That is completely ridiculous and a little offensive to claim.

And it should be common knowledge that just because something is a law doesn't mean it's right or backed by any education or knowledge or practicality. Our country has a long history of laws that are inhumane and/or unconstitutional.

Just because people assume homosexual men are the highest risk pool for AIDS doesn't mean they are. And if it were really about that they wouldn't be the only pool of people banned from donating based on gender and sexual orientation. In fact young, african american, low SES females are the highest statistical group to have AIDs from sexual contraction and drug use. That wouldn't make it right to ban them. Personal responsibility should count for something. Everyone, no matter your age, gender, sexual orientation, or drug history, should get themselves checked for STDs and AIDS at least once per sexual partner. And if you come out positive, don't donate.

It's about discrimination and finger-pointing to disallow gay men to donate. In fact there was an article at my school done after an "under cover" research project on it. Some "straight men" went to donate and told the Red Cross reps that they slept with at least 15 partners in the last year, all of them without protection, and have never been tested. They were allowed to donate. Then they sent in "gay men" who told the reps that they've only slept with one male partner or less in the last year and always used protection. They were turned away and told not to donate blood - ever.

It should be a case-by-case thing. Donating life-necessary things like blood should be open to anyone willing to do so and healthy enough to do so.

NO - its not discrimination it's a safeguard for the population of needy patients that have enough problems and don't need well meaning people making them more sick.

There is no 'right' to give blood!

We don't need everyone's blood - we need the safest blood we can get. If can get enough blood by using exclusively low-risk donors - that's the safest thing to do!

You can't drive if you've had a seizure, you can't drink & drive - you can't cry fire in a crowded theater - there hundreds of restrictions that make complete sense. It's not discrimination against epileptics or drunks or anarchists - it's just common sense!

Then according to this logic, all people who have ever lived in the projects, under the poverty line, or part of a low SES (socio-economic status) household should be barred from donating blood. After all, that's the group with the greatest statistical likelihood of being HIV-positive, having sick-cell anemia, or disease from drug use. Hell, let's safe guard employees of gas stations, convenient stores, and liquor stores from the chance of being robbed by not letting in young black people in after dark because that's the statistical profile of break-in and robbery perpetrators.

Just because it can be argued, doesn't make it right.

I don't think that was Gunsmoke's main point. As Sarah pointed out earlier there are a LOT of restrictions. And as far as the travel to Europe restriction - it's 3 months. As far as I'm concerned, that is also an unnecessary precaution (the limit is too low in my opinion). The government is making these *many* additional rules to *reduce* the odds of having a contaminated blood supply. Obviously they have to draw the line somewhere. And honestly, your idea (even if it was sarcasm) is probably better than the current policy in terms of safety.

As Gunsmoke says, blood donation is NOT a human right, although if there really is no statistical difference between HIV in gay populations vs. straight populations then I think that restriction should be removed.

And your convenience store example doesn't exactly hold because black people DO have a right thanks to anti-discrimination laws to go into stores during the same time as everyone else.

Yes having sickle cell anemia is one thing that disqualifies you from donating as does hemophilia and other non-hereditary conditions like cancer. The disqualifications are medically not socioeconomically based - and it may very well be that more poor people or black people are disqualified - I don't know.

But they are never turned down for being poor or black, it's always the result as specific condition or activity.

It's not commonly known, but taking many prescription drugs also disqualifies a donor. Things like Proscar, Acutane, Avodart, Human Growth Hormone and 10 or so others.

The people in charge of the safety of our blood supply are not homophobes or racists, they health professionals with the solemn responsibility to protect the vulnerable citizens who need blood in their hour of need.

The blood supply is not a politically-correct social program - it's about life and death. Someday if you need blood, you will be relieved to know that the people who brought that blood to you took every possible precaution to make sure it is safe for you.