Posted on 02/20/2026 7:21:16 AM PST by fwdude
PANAMA CITY - Luis, a 26-year-old Panamanian man, has tried to donate blood four times in his life. The first time he was rejected. The other three times, he was allowed to do it only because he hid the fact that he has a boyfriend.
"I felt dirty, as if I was sick," Luis said of his first attempt to give blood to an ailing family member. He used a pseudonym because he feared the legal implications of breaching Panama's rules banning gay and bisexual men from donating blood.
Many countries, including Panama, introduced blood donation controls in the 1980s early in the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
But the COVID-19 pandemic saw severe blood shortages worldwide when lockdowns meant people could not donate blood.
Since then, several countries from the United States and Germany to Britain and Australia have lifted or relaxed policies restricting gay and bisexual donors, arguing that technology to check blood for potential issues has improved.
Activists have long said bans and restrictions on LGBTQ+ donors were outdated and stigmatising.
But Panama, a Central American country of 4.5 million inhabitants, has maintained its restrictions, creating a dilemma for LGBTQ+ individuals who want to help sick friends, family members and fellow citizens.
Last year, Luis had to lie again to provide blood for a family friend in hospital.
"I panicked when I got to the hospital, because I suddenly remembered I have a Pride flag tattoo on my left arm, so I begged them to use the right one," Luis told Context.
"I felt under surveillance."
'Lack of progress'
In 2008, Panama became the last country to decriminalise same-sex relations in Latin America. Since then, there has been little progress on LGBTQ+ rights.
Gay and lesbian couples are not legally recognised, the internal rules of the national police classify homosexuality as a "grave offense" punishable with dismissal, and LGBTQ+ people are not protected from discrimination in education, healthcare or the workplace.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2023 same-sex marriage was not a constitutional right in response to challenges by couples who sought to have their marriages performed abroad recognised in Panama.
"The lack of legislative and judicial progress shows that Panama is not ready to recognise LGBTI people's rights," said Iván Chanis, president of Fundación Iguales, an LGBTQ+ group.
He and his brother, also a gay man, were barred from donating blood when their mother had to undergo a life-or-death operation.
Scientists say bans not only discriminate against LGBTQ+ people but also pose a threat to healthcare systems by excluding healthy donors.
Panama's blood supply is organised primarily through a network of public and private hospital-based blood banks, rather than a single, centralised national service. The system relies on a mix of voluntary and replacement donations.
Replacement donations, in which relatives or friends give blood to patients undergoing surgery or treatment, are common, but health authorities say a transition to regular voluntary blood donation would reduce chronic shortages.
The health ministry said in January blood banks were in a critical situation, with supply below 40% of capacity.
"If you are relying on a real scientific criterion, you should evaluate a potential donor based on their individual sexual behaviour - whether it's risky or not," said Macarena de la Rubia, president of Fundación Dona Vida, a non-profit working to boost blood donations in Panama.
Some HIV blood tests can now detect infection within two weeks of exposure.
"As things stand today, it does not make sense to treat all homosexual and bisexual men as people with risky behaviour," de la Rubia said.
She said Panama faces especially severe blood shortages from November to March during nationwide Christmas and Carnival celebrations.
Panama's health ministry did not respond to several requests for comment. Increasing donations
Lifting restrictions widens the pool of potential donors, although it is hard to quantify whether the policy changes in other countries have led to a surge in blood donations from gay and bisexual men, because many of the nations that have taken this step no longer ask donors about their sexual orientation.
"However, we have seen a positive response, with many newly eligible individuals now working with us to give blood, host blood drives and volunteer at blood drives," said Daniel Parra, media relations lead at the American Red Cross.
In 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) replaced screening questions targeted at men who have sex with men with a gender inclusive, individual risk based questionnaire for all donors.
"Since implementing the FDA's individual donor assessment, more than 10% of individuals in our system who had previously been unable to give under the prior policy, and who we informed of the change, have returned to donate blood with the Red Cross," Parra said.
"And more than 60% of these individuals who have returned have donated multiple times since the change." Weight of stigma
For gay and bisexual Panamanians, the ban reinforces existing stigma around homosexuality and HIV in a country where conservative groups have long opposed efforts to include sex education in schools.
"The fact that a policy says you are permanently excluded and that you will forever be a high-risk person really weighs on us," said Ángel Garay, a 25-year-old Panamanian man who was rejected when he tried to donate blood for his sick uncle.
"But what hurt me the most was that a family member needed my help, and I could not do anything to help him."
Panama has never had openly LGBTQ+ lawmakers, and very few members of parliament have publicly supported legal changes in favour of this minority.
In 2023, an MP brought forward a proposal to revoke the blood ban, but parliament was dissolved for a 2024 election before a vote.
For Chanis, the policy is simply no longer fit for purpose.
"Science has already moved forward," he said.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
When you play in a sewer, you get dirty.
Same old emotive crap, same old propaganda - as though homosexuals are lining up to donate at blood banks, and now they are emotionally devastated.
These bleeds allow disease to migrate between you and your partner. HIV is just one example.
These should have no opportunity to pass to non-gays.
If you got HIV and aren't gay, you most likely got it from an infected partner. A small number get it from rape or blood transfusion, and these are the innocents you appear happy to infect.
You are dirty. You have a disgusting sexual predilection that has been known to be an abomination to God.
Change your heart and mind before it is too late.
You are, and you are.
Dude. You are sick. You just now figuring this out?
Lying to donate tainted blood could be considered attempted murder.
Who in their right mind would want a transfusion from a homosexual man or for that matter from a promiscuous woman.
One of their argument is that blood shortages demand more qualified donors. Well, the relaxing of blood donation rules in the U.S. hasn’t exactly bolstered the blood supply. In fact, the existing blood shortages have seemed to linger on, if not become exacerbated.
It seems that when you apply the same strict, critically essential requirements for gay men to donate on the general population, you get far fewer qualified people. Anyway, what traditional donor wants to answer the new, unnecessary, embarrassingly probing questions about “anal sex” and new or multiple partners on the questionnaire?
Or promiscuous man.
“Horn Dog” usually applies to us guys.
Shooting fish in a barrel…
My favorite college professor in the early ‘80s died of AIDS from a blood transfusion.
Yep, the questionnaire is basically a textbook of degenerate behavior.
Now, we’re expected to navigate around these landmines if at all possible. Better to completely avoid the minefield. The risks (which we will NOT be allowed to hear about) aren’t worth it.
*feel*
Yeah, sure always about yourself.
The reality is that male homosexuals generally engage in sex that’s more at risk for contracting AIDS.
Generally, homosexuals engage in more risky behavior all together.
Maybe you don’t understand that another persons health is more important than your feelings.
Maybe you’re just an incredibly selfish person.
The person needing blood is in *need* and shouldn’t have the added worry/risk with accepting blood.
This is why I disagree with the blood drives on college campuses, some of the most sexually active places in society. There are better places to have these.
You are dirty and sick - and I wouldn't want your tainted blood either.
Note to self: Get blood from Panamanian source — for now.
And they should also ask if the potential doner has cancer.
“Last year, Luis had to lie again to provide blood for a family friend in hospital.”
Luis had to lie again, saying he was an American citizen, in order to vote in California.
O.k. He didn’t say that. However, my point is that you can’t always count on self-reporting. Sometimes people lie.
You can deter some lying (crime in general) by increasing the “cost” of lying. If you increase the likelihood of getting caught and increase the penalty for getting caught, then you increase the cost of lying. So, ICE agents near the voting booth.
If you can decrease the payoff for lying (crime in general), that’s good too. So, cut off the Democrat money flow to those who harvest the vote of illegals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.