Again, "discriminate" seems like a strange choice of words.
In the first world, gay men and IV drug users represent a very small percentage of the population, but a very large percentage of people with HIV. (The next biggest group is women who have sex with men who use IV drugs or have sex with men, who are also barred for donating). By barring them from donating, blood banks can eliminate a very large percentage of the risks by eliminating a very small percentage of the donors.
Are they excessively conservative in some cases? Certainly they are. But, I don't see that as being "discrimination" any more than Locks of Love discriminates against short-haired people by not using short hair or Goodwill is discriminating against poor people by not taking donations of appliances that don't work. Agencies who accept donations want donations that suit their needs, and in the case of blood donations, that means blood from people who are a low risk for blood-borne illness.
Again, remember that the point of blood donation isn't the blood donor, and it's not being conducted for the donor's benefit. It's about giving blood -- healthy blood -- to sick or injured people who need it.
Originally Posted by melysion
Hmm. If I was given the choice of bleeding to death or accepting a blood donation from someone who pulse was too high, I'd take my chances with the blood thanks. I understand the concept behind it but theres a point where things get a little OTT.
That one I'm pretty sure has nothing to do with the the blood being dangerous. I'm guessing that, like minimum weight requirements and iron levels, are aimed at reducing the number of donors who pass out in the parking lot afterwards.