Gay man lied when giving blood.

[Tower-Union]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/10/06/11327066-sun.html


OTTAWA -- A gay man testified Tuesday that he lied when asked if he’d had sex with other men when giving blood because he knew he’d be “blacklisted” and wanted his donations to help others.

Kyle Freeman, 36, said he felt he wasn’t at risk because he got HIV tests regularly and didn’t have unprotected anal sex except with a long-term partner when both had been tested. The court has heard, however, that he contracted syphilis and gonorrhea.

Canadian Blood Services is suing Freeman for lying when he gave blood.

The Thornhill, Ont., man is countersuing, arguing the agency’s lifetime ban on donations from men who’ve had sex with another man — even once — since 1977 is scientifically unjustified and violates his constitutional rights.

“My father was a blood donor — we were always taught that’s the ultimate way to help people,” Freeman told the court. “It’s the ultimate gift you can give someone.”

Freeman’s lawyer, Patricia LeFebour, started taking him through each of his 18 blood donations, starting in high school. He repeatedly said no when asked by nurses if he’d had sex with other men.

“I felt my risk was non-existent,” he said. “I don’t believe I participated in high-risk activities because I used a condom and got tested.”

“I wanted the blood to be used. I knew that if I would have answered yes I would have been excluded from having my blood used. Once they found out I was in a same-sex relationship I would not be able to donate blood anymore.

“I would be blacklisted.”

Freeman said that before each blood donation he’d avoid sex for three months, get tested for HIV and other sexually-transmitted infections, then give when he got the negative results.

Freeman, an Israeli immigrant who runs a pet-sitting business, described his struggle to come out to his family and being the victim of anti-gay harassment. He and his partner were threatened for holding hands at Toronto’s Caribana festival last year, and Freeman was told in army reserve training when he was a teenager that gay recruits would get a “blanket party” — a beating.

Freeman is backed by the gay rights group Egale, which argues the ban sends the hateful message gay men are perverted, diseased and responsible for AIDS.

Canadian Blood Services — backed by the Canadian Hemophilia Society — argues the ban is essential to protect the blood supply because gay men are simply more likely to have sexually-transmitted infections, including HIV.

megan.gillis@sunmedia.ca




So what do you think? Is it discrimination to refuse blood donation from someone because of their sexuality? Even if it is proven that this particular group (gay men) has a higher rate of STD's, including AIDS?

Either way this guy is a douche bag for giving blood despite contracting syphilis and gonorrhea :rolleyes:

[yg17]

The ban is stupid, but anyone, gay or straight, who donates blood after having an STD is a moron.

[iBlue]

I don't think it's appropriate to exclude blood simply because the donor is homosexual. I think it assumes too much. There are plenty of gay couples in long-term monogamous relationships and I'd be happy to take that blood over some slutbag who just happens to go in the front door instead of the back.

I think there should be more focus on the safe or not safe sex the donor has rather their sexual orientation.

[zap2]

The ban does seem silly, but I think he went about it the wrong way


Also, the blood has to be tested right? If its tested and clean, who cares if a male donor has sex with another man?

[DiamondMac]

The ban may be silly but he lied

So, I have no problem with them going forward with this

Again, I am for gay marriage. But they asked him a question (unfair or not) and he lied about it.

[nbs2]

I don't think it's appropriate to exclude blood simply because the donor is homosexual. I think it assumes too much. There are plenty of gay couples in long-term monogamous relationships and I'd be happy to take that blood over some slutbag who just happens to go in the front door instead of the back.

I think there should be more focus on the safe or not safe sex the donor has rather their sexual orientation.

That's all fine and dandy, but the blood supply isn't a place to make a political statement. That's something that needs to be changed from the outside, not by contravening established medical protocol by saying: “I felt my risk was non-existent,” he said. “I don’t believe I participated in high-risk activities because I used a condom and got tested.”

Feelings and personal beliefs don't belong in medical science any more than they do in biological science.

Also, the blood has to be tested right? If its tested and clean, who cares if a male donor has sex with another man?

Resources and chance of error. Resources are precious and an error could be life-ending. If testing was the easy, plentiful, cheap and perfect, we wouldn't need to have any screening questions.

I am curious - what is the <applicable disease or other issue> rate among the various screened-out groups. Even if we droppped the lowest infection rates, something tells me that the "lived in Europe" groups would be the first to drop off of the list.

[jmann]

I have lied while giving plamsa too! Especially on the question about sex with a man! Do I care one bit? No. You can hate me all you want for lying. But I really don't give a **** because my plasma will be tested like everyone else, and I know I'm clean. And if there was a problem then they will have tested for it while screening the samples.

And want to know what happened in the end? I ended up being "outed" at the plasma bank, probably from someone from my work that knew an employee there. So I technically am "blacklisted", but do I feel bad about it? Nope, not one bit. Did I deserve it? Probably a bit because I lied, but I tried donating to help others as well as earn me a bit of cash in the process. Listing non-homosexual activity as a requirement for donating is completely archaic. :D

[Tower-Union]

Feelings and personal beliefs don't belong in medical science any more than they do in biological science.

Well said.

Also, its true the blood has to be tested, but taking blood from a high risk population would ultimately be a waste of time and resources, you have to screen the person, take the blood, test the blood, and then throw it out because its no good. Would you make the same argument of "well it gets tested. . ." if we were talking about intervenous drug users? With that logic why bother screening at all?

Maybe a better questions would be "have you engaged in anal sex in the past" or, "how many sexual partners have you been with?"

[jmann]

Maybe a better questions would be "have you engaged in anal sex in the past"

So that all of the straight people who like anal sex can be excluded? I think that this is divulging a bit too personally into people's sex lives.

But honestly an easy settlement would be to require "gay people" to have documented proof from the last 30 days saying they have been tested clean. That at least would minimize the "risks". It's still a pain, but I would do it.

[leekohler]

The ban is stupid, but anyone, gay or straight, who donates blood after having an STD is a moron.

Agreed completely.

[sushi]

A few years ago (80's) when the military was going through HIV/AIDs training, high risk groups were identified statistically. Gays were among the high risk groups. So were IV type (needle) drug users among others. Appropriately, the blood collectors do not want tainted blood in their reserves and thus do not collect from those who belong to high risk groups.

Anyhow, when you give blood there are many disqualifying criteria these days. I don't see it as discriminatory but rather to ensure the blood supply is safe to use.

FWIW, this comes from the perspective of someone who's friend's brother died of a tainted blood transfusion that contained HIV. And yes, they won a 10 million dollar suite against the Air Force for having tainted blood. Donating blood is serious business for the medical profession.

Personally, I've been on both ends of the spectrum, giving and receiving. When I receive blood I don't give a hoot who it is from as long as it is good blood plasma and it is safe. Coincidentally, I expect the blood collectors to employ methods that ensure this.

[Unspoken Demise]

Seems like an outdated law. Maybe a new standard for blood donation should be you bring a note signed by a doctor that you are free of STDs? Just a thought.

[iBlue]

That's all fine and dandy, but the blood supply isn't a place to make a political statement. That's something that needs to be changed from the outside, not by contravening established medical protocol by saying: “I felt my risk was non-existent,” he said. “I don’t believe I participated in high-risk activities because I used a condom and got tested.”

Feelings and personal beliefs don't belong in medical science any more than they do in biological science.


Okay, I can't say I disagree with anything you've said (and I don't condone his lying/assumptions of safety) but I don't agree with the ban for the reasons I already mentioned.

[sushi]

Seems like an outdated law. Maybe a new standard for blood donation should be you bring a note signed by a doctor that you are free of STDs? Just a thought.
The problem with some diseases, such as HIV, there can be a considerable time between infection and when you show up positive on a test.

Others like Herpes a person can be a carrier and infect others, yet show no symptoms themselves.

Then there is Syphilis and it's various stages that can go undetected.

There are many bad diseases out there, that much is certain. :eek:

[P-Worm]

I lived in England for 2 years and can't donate blood. I'm not upset one bit about this and appreciate the caution that is taken over these matters. I think effort should be toward encouraging eligible people to donate blood rather than make screening more lenient. This literally is a matter of life and death and not something that should be trifled with.

P-Worm

[Unspoken Demise]

The problem with some diseases, such as HIV, there can be a considerable time between infection and when you show up positive on a test.

Others like Herpes a person can be a carrier and infect others, yet show no symptoms themselves.

Then there is Syphilis and it's various stages that can go undetected.

There are many bad diseases out there, that much is certain. :eek:

Ah, very true points. Suggestion retracted. :o
Well we can all agree this is an out dated law.

[iBlue]

I lived in England for 2 years and can't donate blood.

Really? Like you can never donate blood again because you lived in England? I wonder why that is.

My husband (whose blood type is always in demand) went to donate blood and they said he had to come back later because he had been to the US in the last 28 days.

http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/smilies/panic.gif Foreign cooties!

[sushi]

Red Cross Blood Eligibility Guidelines. (http://www.redcross.org/en/eligibility)

[Gelfin]

Really? Like you can never donate blood again because you lived in England? I wonder why that is.

My husband (whose blood type is always in demand) went to donate blood and they said he had to come back later because he had been to the US in the last 28 days.

http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/smilies/panic.gif Foreign cooties!

It is a well-known medical phenomenon that if you draw a line in the dirt, everyone on the other side of that line immediately becomes riddled with pestilence. How cartographers sleep at night is anybody's guess.

[leekohler]

The problem with some diseases, such as HIV, there can be a considerable time between infection and when you show up positive on a test.

Others like Herpes a person can be a carrier and infect others, yet show no symptoms themselves.

Then there is Syphilis and it's various stages that can go undetected.

There are many bad diseases out there, that much is certain. :eek:

It's difficult for even me to get upset about this. They do what they have to I suppose. This guy should not have lied about this- look what happened. I know I would feel terrible if I ever gave anyone an STD. It's not worth it.

[AP_piano295]

I dont know about a ban on gay donation.

I suppose the decision is not w/o precedant (Anal sex does carry increased risk of contracting certain STD's)

But as stated above they might be better off evaluating people's sexual behavior gay or strait, rather than simplying blacklisting gay donations.

I would want to see some statistics before I would make a call one way or the other.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I spent some time in Portugal and they said I couldn't donate for something like 7 years (I'm going off what I remember, this was 8 years ago). They said it was due to the risk of me being a potential carrier of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease which was hitting Portugal especially hard at the time.

I'm sure more is known now (maybe not, I haven't looked into it), but back then they weren't taking any chances with it, and for good reason. I was in no way upset, though I do donate when I get the chance now that I'm allowed again.

Edit: Looking at Sushi's link to the red cross, I can't tell if I never should have been turned away (appears it's 1980-1996 spent in those countries) or perhaps I should be lifetime banned. Either way, I took the people's word for it, and I've been allowed to donate in the past 6 or 7 month since I started doing it again. I'm 100% truthful about my history with the donation service too.

who knows?

SLC

[Rt&Dzine]

It really bothers me that he lied. But ineligible non-gays could lie too. Maybe everyone should be subjected to a lie detector test prior to donation.

[arkitect]

Maybe a better questions would be "have you engaged in anal sex in the past" or, "how many sexual partners have you been with?"

*Scratches head*…
So anal sex is the only way you think you can become HIV+?

Got news for you… do you really think all those HIV+ straight men and women were all having anal sex or they're all intravenous drug users?
:rolleyes:

It is a stupid ban, but heh, I can deal with it.
Dumb f***s don't want my blood? Fine.

[leekohler]

*Scratches head*…
So anal sex is the only way you think you can become HIV+?

Got news for you… do you really think all those HIV+ straight men and women were all having anal sex or they're all intravenous drug users?
:rolleyes:


Just look at Africa.

[arkitect]

Just look at Africa.

Precisely my point.

[Unspoken Demise]

It is a stupid ban, but heh, I can deal with it.
Dumb f***s don't want my blood? Fine.

Agreed, its a stupid ban.
For clarity, by dumb f***s do you mean the recipients, or the people collecting the blood? I can assure you many would not be against taking homosexual blood.

[P-Worm]

Really? Like you can never donate blood again because you lived in England? I wonder why that is.

My husband (whose blood type is always in demand) went to donate blood and they said he had to come back later because he had been to the US in the last 28 days.

http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/smilies/panic.gif Foreign cooties!

From what I understand, it's quite serious. I can't donate because I've lived for a long time in an environment where there is Mad Cow Disease. They obviously don't want it spreading to the States if it can be helped.

P-Worm

[arkitect]

Agreed, its a stupid ban.
For clarity, by dumb f***s do you mean the recipients, or the people collecting the blood? I can assure you many would not be against taking homosexual blood.

The people collecting it… at least the ones making the rules.
Definitely not the recipients. :)

[Tower-Union]

*Scratches head*…
So anal sex is the only way you think you can become HIV+?

Got news for you… do you really think all those HIV+ straight men and women were all having anal sex or they're all intravenous drug users?
:rolleyes:


Of course not, it is however much easier to spread through anal sex, so there is some logic in ruling out a population who participates SOLEY in anal sex, as mentioned before we have finite resources for testing blood, tighter restrictions means less strain on the system.

As for Africa, the problem there is more a cultural one, there is a widespread belief that AIDS can be cured by having sex with a virgin, which is why we're seeing such high rates of child (even infant) molestation. . . :(

[Zombie Acorn]

The CDC has posted clear stats on this, 53% of new HIV cases come from gay/bi relations, thats a huge number for a minority of the population.

Its a simple risk adverse policy, its easier to just not deal with the chances.

[arkitect]

there is some logic in ruling out a population who participates SOLEY in anal sex
:confused::confused:
I am sorry… you've lost me (again)…

So now you're claiming that the gay "population" solely participate in anal sex?
You mean we only have anal sex?

That's all we do?

If there was a "Gay Sex for Dummies" guide I'd point you in that direction… but I'll leave you to discover the ins and outs.

How narrow minded can you be?

[DiamondMac]

If there was a "Gay Sex for Dummies" guide I'd point you in that direction… but I'll leave you to discover the ins and outs.

Wait, that involve birds and bees?

[sushi]

It's difficult for even me to get upset about this. They do what they have to I suppose. This guy should not have lied about this- look what happened. I know I would feel terrible if I ever gave anyone an STD. It's not worth it.
Agreed. :)

Unfortunately, many others out there who do not feel as we do.

Just look at Africa.
Prime example of how HIV can infect anybody.

I can assure you many would not be against taking homosexual blood.
That goes without saying. I would venture to say that most would be happy to receive good, clean and safe blood plasma from any source.

Agreed, its a stupid ban.
I completely understand where you are coming from.

However, having worked in the government/military environment (meaning a large organization that works around the world in many countries) for many years, in order to guarantee a certain level of safety, sometimes you have to make draconian rules.

For example, using a different venue, let's talk about USB Thumb Drives. We used to be able to use them to transfer files. Because of issues involved with a few individuals, they then limited it to official USB Thumb Drives which were those purchased and tracked by the government. Use of personal ones could result in job termination. Now, because that system didn't work (ie, some individuals broke the rules), USB Thumb Drives are not allowed within the DoD. So you have a situation where a few ruined it for the many.

The same logic is being applied to the blood donations. Tainted blood can cost lives, create lawsuits and cause public safety issues. So the solution to eliminate risk is to make blanket bans. If you look at the Red Cross link that I posted above, they have some draconian rules concerning individuals who have visited places where Mad Cow disease has existed to ensure safety of the blood supply.

In the case of the man in question, I don't see it as discrimination in the slightest. This individual committed fraud by misrepresenting himself during the screening criteria. If he donated often and his blood were tainted, he could have affected many patients who received it. I'm sorry, but that's not right.

[Tomorrow]

Really? Like you can never donate blood again because you lived in England? I wonder why that is.

It's been explained to me that it has to do with the risk of mad cow disease. I don't know how statistically significant the risk is, but that's what I was told.

Speaking of statistics, I'm curious - in the U.S. (I know the story took place in Canada, but bear with me) there may have once been a time when gay men were statistically more likely to carry HIV than women or straight men. I don't know if that's the case or not, but even if it were, is that still the case? Is there still a statistically sound reason to exclude gay men from donating?

I could understand a ban, temporary or otherwise, on someone who has ever tested positive for an STD. But if there's not a statistically sound reason for excluding gay men, then it doesn't make sense to me.

[Zombie Acorn]

It's been explained to me that it has to do with the risk of mad cow disease. I don't know how statistically significant the risk is, but that's what I was told.

Speaking of statistics, I'm curious - in the U.S. (I know the story took place in Canada, but bear with me) there may have once been a time when gay men were statistically more likely to carry HIV than women or straight men. I don't know if that's the case or not, but even if it were, is that still the case? Is there still a statistically sound reason to exclude gay men from donating?

I could understand a ban, temporary or otherwise, on someone who has ever tested positive for an STD. But if there's not a statistically sound reason for excluding gay men, then it doesn't make sense to me.

53% of new cases of HIV are from gay/bi relations, 50% of the HIV infected people in the US are gay/bi according to the CDC

[Gelfin]

Wait, that involve birds and bees?

No, it involves birds and other birds. It's scandalous, but as they say, birds know what birds like and bees know what bees like. Sometimes I feel like one of those radicals who doesn't understand what the birds and the bees ever saw in each other, but far be it from me to sunder the very foundations of society.

[leekohler]

53% of new cases of HIV are from gay/bi relations, 50% of the HIV infected people in the US are gay/bi according to the CDC

The black community is also heavily affected.

http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm

Our young folks also aren't taking this seriously enough. They think you just take a pill and you're OK. They didn't see half their friends drop dead from AIDS, so they think it's no big deal.

[Zombie Acorn]

The black community is also heavily affected.

http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm

Our young folks also aren't taking this seriously enough. They think you just take a pill and you're OK. They didn't see half their friends drop dead from AIDS, so they think it's no big deal.

Obviously segregating by actions is much easier than segregating by race, not sure it should be that way but I can't imagine them saying "no black people" without getting some major outcry.

Technically you can give blood if you are gay, just not if you have had sex with a man, not sure on the rules in the US if its a lifetime ban still.

[sushi]

Our young folks also aren't taking this seriously enough. They think you just take a pill and you're OK. They didn't see half their friends drop dead from AIDS, so they think it's no big deal.
I think that you've hit the nail on the head.

Not sure for women, but I know from a man's perspective he has two brains. When the normal one is in charge, a man is fairly rational. However, when junior is in charge, all bets are off. :o

[Rodimus Prime]

The black community is also heavily affected.

http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm

Our young folks also aren't taking this seriously enough. They think you just take a pill and you're OK. They didn't see half their friends drop dead from AIDS, so they think it's no big deal.

true but that number still pales in comparison to the number from Male to Male sexual contact.

I can see it from the point of view of the blood banks that they just want to remove the high risk group. big time after the spread the HIV virus around with tainted blood.

It is sad but when you consider how small the Gay comminity is in numbers compared to the population as a whole and they have the largest chunk group of people who are infected it does not add up.

I would like to see what the numbers of infected HIV who are Gay and have had male to male sexual interaction. I do not know any sources off hand that I would trust to have a good number. And by trust I am worried that to many of them would either massively over report the number or under report it. But by far more over reporting than under.

edit: I did a little reading on it and part of the problem with figuring out the risk of HIV with Gay men in particure is they do not know how much of the population is gay and can not get an accurant count because so many choose to hide that fact. So all the numbers out there is pretty big shot in the dark. I honestly do not expect the rule to change until they have an accurent count of Gays in the United states so they can figure out the percentage of the Gay population who do have HIV.

[iGary]

I've done it, too, but haven't given blood in 9 years. I've lead a much safer sexual life than many of my friends, but somehow my blood is tainted? Whatever.

Of course not, it is however much easier to spread through anal sex, so there is some logic in ruling out a population who participates SOLEY in anal sex.

I've never put my wang into anyone's ass or the other way around. Can I stop saying I'm gay, then?

[leekohler]

I think that you've hit the nail on the head.

Not sure for women, but I know from a man's perspective he has two brains. When the normal one is in charge, a man is fairly rational. However, when junior is in charge, all bets are off. :o

That's why guys should use condoms every single time. We shouldn't even have to think about that. Just always have one handy. It might sound weird, but I've always got one with me at all times.

[yg17]

Of course not, it is however much easier to spread through anal sex, so there is some logic in ruling out a population who participates SOLEY in anal sex

BJs? HJs? Going in the backdoor isn't the only way for gay people to have sex.

[leekohler]

BJs? HJs? Going in the backdoor isn't the only way for gay people to have sex.

It sure isn't. It isn't even the main way we do. Some of you straight folks have very active imaginations. :)

[Tomorrow]

BJs? HJs? Going in the backdoor isn't the only way for gay people to have sex.

That, and straight people do all of those, too. Not necessarily "solely," but you get my meaning.

Funny how we're more alike than different, huh? ;)

[leekohler]

That, and straight people do all of those, too. Not necessarily "solely," but you get my meaning.

Funny how we're more alike than different, huh? ;)

Yep. I think some straight people think we have these amazing sex lives. Truth be told, some of us do. But as far as the majority of us go- we're not that different from the rest of you.

[bbotte]

Canada shoud uphold their "liar liar pants on fire" law. On another note I didn't know Canada had "Constitutional Rights". Hmm, something new everyday.

[leekohler]

On another note I didn't know Canada had "Constitutional Rights".

That's a sad commentary on the US. Wow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada

[Eraserhead]

*Scratches head*…
So anal sex is the only way you think you can become HIV+?

Got news for you… do you really think all those HIV+ straight men and women were all having anal sex or they're all intravenous drug users?
:rolleyes:

Anal sex is "worse" than vaginal sex as you if you don't use lube and bleed then you are much more likely to pass HIV on. Also as the "receiver" is much less likely to pass HIV to the "giver", gay male sex is still more risky than heterosexual anal sex as you can take part as both roles.

That said intravenous drug use is much, much more effective at spreading HIV than sex.

[Don't panic]

Really? Like you can never donate blood again because you lived in England? I wonder why that is.

My husband (whose blood type is always in demand) went to donate blood and they said he had to come back later because he had been to the US in the last 28 days.

http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/smilies/panic.gif Foreign cooties!


it's because of mad cow disease.
If you have been in england or some other countries in a certain period, you are barred from donating blood in the US.
i am also excluded for that reason.

[Signal-11]

Speaking of statistics, I'm curious - in the U.S. (I know the story took place in Canada, but bear with me) there may have once been a time when gay men were statistically more likely to carry HIV than women or straight men. I don't know if that's the case or not, but even if it were, is that still the case? Is there still a statistically sound reason to exclude gay men from donating?

I could understand a ban, temporary or otherwise, on someone who has ever tested positive for an STD. But if there's not a statistically sound reason for excluding gay men, then it doesn't make sense to me.

High risk homosexuals account for roughly half of new transmissions in the US. High risk heterosexuals, roughly a third. This is different from what Rodimus Prime and Zombie Acorn are implying with there statements and numbers, because they are giving statistics without context or understanding about what this means, implies or indicates. Obviously, once you add the qualifiers, the problem is high risk sexual behaviour, not specifically homosexual anal sex.

Unfortunately, gay men (or married men who are looking for gay sex) are much more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior, thus the ban on blood giving.

As for Africa, the problem there is more a cultural one, there is a widespread belief that AIDS can be cured by having sex with a virgin, which is why we're seeing such high rates of child (even infant) molestation. . . :(

Um, no. Not exactly, anyway. Africa is a big place and nothing annoys me more than blanket statements about what Africans believe or what Africa is like.

Anyway, the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS between North America and Africa (or most of the developing world, for that matter) in terms of patterns of transmission are extremely different with the only common factor is that if you got rid of of promiscuous men, you wouldn't have a disease anymore.

Feelings and personal beliefs don't belong in medical science any more than they do in biological science.

As much as I'm a promoter of evidence based medicine, I have little tolerance for medical personnel with no passion for their jobs.

[CalBoy]

The ban may be silly but he lied

So, I have no problem with them going forward with this

Again, I am for gay marriage. But they asked him a question (unfair or not) and he lied about it.

Of course Ghandi also broke the law when he made salt; Rosa Parks decided to break the law when she took her seat.

Would you have emphatically pushed for their prosecutions?

Would you uphold every "silly" law that came your way? What about ones that are humiliating, prejudicial and whose faulty logical basis represents a danger to others in society?


http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/smilies/panic.gif Foreign cooties!

Best emoticon ever. :)

Of course not, it is however much easier to spread through anal sex, so there is some logic in ruling out a population who participates SOLEY in anal sex, as mentioned before we have finite resources for testing blood, tighter restrictions means less strain on the system.

Of course the questionnaire doesn't ask if you participate "solely in anal sex." It doesn't even ask if you participate mostly in anal sex.



HIV, AIDS
You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.
You are at risk for getting infected if you:

are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977

What is "sexual contact?" Is it anything sexual in the presence of another male? Mutual masturbation? French kissing? Oral sex?

The nature of the guideline itself indicates the bias at work here. This is just as much about anal sex as it is about being gay.


As for Africa, the problem there is more a cultural one, there is a widespread belief that AIDS can be cured by having sex with a virgin, which is why we're seeing such high rates of child (even infant) molestation. . . :(

Whether or not the issue is cultural is irrelevant if the goal is a safer blood supply. Moreover, ignorance of how HIV is spread even within the US remains a cultural problem.

The CDC has posted clear stats on this, 53% of new HIV cases come from gay/bi relations, thats a huge number for a minority of the population.

Its a simple risk adverse policy, its easier to just not deal with the chances.

African Americans are also at risk at similar rates, and their population is very approximate to the estimated size of the American gay population (and likely smaller than the total population of American men who have ever had sex with another man since 1977). Link (http://www.thebody.com/content/art8839.html)

So if we are following the simple risk aversion policy, African-Americans should be barred from donating blood.

In fact, gay white males are not at a significantly greater risk than straight couples for HIV transmission. Perhaps we should qualify the "have you had male-male sex" with a "what race are you?" question.

I mean we are after risk aversion right?

Obviously segregating by actions is much easier than segregating by race, not sure it should be that way but I can't imagine them saying "no black people" without getting some major outcry.

Aye, there's the rub. It's OKAY to tell some fag to leave the blood drive because he's a fag; you can't do the same thing to someone because of their race because as a society we feel that we have moved beyond such classifications.

The Red Cross (and analogous blood-collecting NPOs) can't have it both ways. You either must reject individuals who present a risk because of their minority qualification, or you mustn't. Even if it's a matter of degree of risk, the African-American and gay populations both are relatively the same size and have relatively similar rates of infection.


Technically you can give blood if you are gay, just not if you have had sex with a man,

A policy that pits an individual's altruism against his desire to lead a healthy sexual life is one that is doomed to fail (as is evidenced by this thread's primary news article).

On another note, the crux of the matter is that if you are a sexually active gay adult, you can't give blood whereas most sexually active heterosexual male adults can, and that is the basis of the discrimination at work here.
not sure on the rules in the US if its a lifetime ban still.

Indeed it is still a lifetime ban. The ban was upheld two years ago by a one-vote margin.

true but that number still pales in comparison to the number from Male to Male sexual contact.

As I already linked, it in fact doesn't.

It is sad but when you consider how small the Gay comminity is in numbers compared to the population as a whole and they have the largest chunk group of people who are infected it does not add up.

How large do you think the gay community is by chance?

Repeated estimates over the years have pegged the number between 5-12% of the population. With obvious problems like underreporting, high suicide rates, and closet cases all cautiously kept in mind as qualifiers on that estimate.


Unfortunately, gay men (or married men who are looking for gay sex) are much more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior, thus the ban on blood giving.

And black men are much more likely than either gay men or straight men to engage in dangerous sexual activity. Why can't we bar them from blood donation? The figures for black women aren't much better either.

[Tomorrow]

High risk homosexuals account for roughly half of new transmissions in the US. High risk heterosexuals, roughly a third.

If that's the case, then half the new transmissions are accounted for by a comparatively small (10% or so?) amount of the population.

[DiamondMac]

Would you uphold every "silly" law that came your way?

Nothing silly when it comes to giving blood

Ghandi and other examples have absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

If he wants to give blood, answers the questions. If not, don't give blood.

It really is that simple as unfair as the questions may be

[CalBoy]

Nothing silly when it comes to giving blood

You called the ban "silly." I was merely using your own adjective to ask the question.

As a gay person, the ban is anything but silly to me.



Ghandi and other examples have absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

Your post indicated that you felt the ban wasn't warranted, yet the individual should be prosecuted fully because he intentionally undermined the nature of the donation filtering process.

My question was very apt in that regard; I asked whether or not you would apply the same rules to other criminals from the past. Ghandi undermined British taxation schemes and Rosa Parks undermined the nature of Montgomery busing rules. Would you have also wanted to see them prosecuted had you lived in those times? It's really a simple question.


If he wants to give blood, answers the questions. If not, don't give blood.

If Ghandi wanted salt, he could have bought some. If Rosa Parks wanted to ride the bus, she could have stood. If not, both of them could have chosen to go without salt and buses respectively.


It really is that simple as unfair as the questions may be

What's simple is the idea of civil disobedience. This citizen, like many others before him, is asking all of us to reconsider whether or not a law is fair and equitable. That's all I was trying to demonstrate to you.

[Zombie Acorn]

.

You seem to be taking this rather personally with the use of the word "fag", etc. I don't donate blood myself so I could care less either way. I don't know why everything has to turn into a crusade; so you can't donate blood if you engage in high risk behavior, who cares, their loss.

[ntrigue]

He donated 18 times. Someone, somewhere has an STI courtesy this selfish *******.

[EricNau]

Since it hadn't been mentioned yet:

FDA: Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and Answers (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm)

The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:

Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.
Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA's MSM policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result.
No alternate set of donor eligibility criteria (even including practice of safe sex or a low number of lifetime partners) has yet been found to reliably identify MSM who are not at increased risk for HIV or certain other transfusion transmissible infections.


Are there other donors who have increased risks of HIV or other infections who, as a result, are also excluded from donating blood?
Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population. People who have received transplants of animal tissue or organs are excluded from giving blood because of the still largely unknown risks of transmitting unknown or emerging pathogens harbored by the animal donors. People who have recently traveled to or lived abroad in certain countries may be excluded because they are at risk for transmitting agents such as malaria or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD). People who have engaged in sex in return for money or drugs are also excluded because they are at increased risk for transmitting HIV and other blood-borne infections.

Would FDA ever consider changing the policy?
FDA scientists continue to monitor the scientific literature and to consult with experts in CDC, NIH and other agencies. FDA will continue to publicly revisit the current deferral policy as new information becomes available.
On March 8, 2006, FDA conducted a workshop entitled "Behavior-based donor deferrals in the Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) era". The workshop addressed scientific challenges, opportunities, and risk based donor deferral policies relevant to the protection of the blood supply from transfusion transmissible diseases, seeking input on this topic. Participants were given the opportunity to provide scientific data that could support revising FDA's MSM deferral. The workshop provided a very active, open and broad-based scientific dialogue concerning current behavior-based deferrals and explored other options that may be considered and the data needed to evaluate them.
FDA's primary responsibility is to enhance blood safety and protect blood recipients. . . . Scientific evidence has not yet been provided to FDA that shows that blood donated by MSM or a subgroup of these potential donors, is as safe as blood from currently accepted donors.


The excerpts I posted above are just a few examples; this link is far more comprehensive, and I encourage all to give it a look.
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm

I'm very much opposed to the current ban, but just thought I'd illuminate the FDA's reasoning and logic behind their decision. The FDA is a science-based organization, but one that unfortunately falls behind current research, and also entwines itself with bureaucratic interference. This policy was once warranted and just, but the newest research indicates otherwise; the FDA just needs to catch up.

As to this case specifically, I don't condone lying on blood donation documents. There's a time and place for civil disobedience, but sacrificing the integrity of our blood supply isn't one of them. In the meantime, there are numerous opportunities for anyone ineligible for blood donation to aid their local blood bank by volunteering time, effort, or money, all of which are equally valuable and necessary. Check with your local blood center. :)

[Tower-Union]

:confused::confused:
I am sorry… you've lost me (again)…

So now you're claiming that the gay "population" solely participate in anal sex?
You mean we only have anal sex?

That's all we do?

If there was a "Gay Sex for Dummies" guide I'd point you in that direction… but I'll leave you to discover the ins and outs.

How narrow minded can you be?

I think you may have misunderstood me, what I mean't was if the options are a) Vaginal sex or b) Anal sex I'm fairly sure the gay population participates soley in anal sex. . .



That's all we do?


Well I'm sure there are various other activities very similar to straight sex, however when it comes to the act of intercourse, yes. . . I'm fairly sure that by definition of the word homosexual (in reference to men remember) its purely anal. . . (we're talking about men here remember, wouldn't want you to get lost again :rolleyes:)


How narrow minded can you be?


I should ask you the same question, seems your picking apart my cemantics trying to start a fight http://forums.blueline.ca/images/smilies/crazy.gif

Also, what is with your placing the word "population" in quotes? I'm fairly sure that's the right use of the word, "the gay population", as opposed to, "the straight population", or "the black population."

[arkitect]

I think you may have misunderstood me, what I mean't was if the options are a) Vaginal sex or b) Anal sex I'm fairly sure the gay population participates soley in anal sex. . .
You're back.
OK. So when did you narrow it down to "the act of intercourse", in other words the only way any one can become HIV+ is by penetrative sex? ie.
Your quote:
the options are a) Vaginal sex or b) Anal sex
What a narrow minded view you have.

And if you read further into the thread it isn't just me who is having problems figuring out your logic…

Well I'm sure there are various other activities very similar to straight sex, however when it comes to the act of intercourse, yes. . . I'm fairly sure that by definition of the word homosexual (in reference to men remember) its purely anal. . . (we're talking about men here remember, wouldn't want you to get lost again :rolleyes:)
Now that is such a silly thing to say.
Homosexual (gasp!!!) the word has nothing to do with man to man sex (It derives from, not the Latin Homo = man, but the greek homos = the same.)
Read up, you'll be surprised.

I should ask you the same question, seems your picking apart my cemantics trying to start a fight http://forums.blueline.ca/images/smilies/crazy.gif
Semantics.

[Tower-Union]

You know what? **** it, I had a response, but I'm not gonna bother. I opened the topic to start some discussion, which for the most part has been great, but I'm not getting dragged down into an argument with a troll. Also, yes, your right, I misspelled the word semantics.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Now that is such a silly thing to say.
Homosexual (gasp!!!) the word has nothing to do with man to man sex (It derives from, not the Latin Homo = man, but the greek homos = the same.)
Read up, you'll be surprised.


Semantics.

I didn't ever think he/she was trying to say that the term homosexual is a reference to men only. And even if the use of the term Homo was in the latin sense, it still would be referring to mankind rather than males.

I think what Tower-union was trying to say was that when describing homosexual intercourse with respect to the sexual actions of gay men, the term intercourse alludes to anal sex.

The sentence "...homosexual (in reference to men remember)..." is what tripped you up most likely. This means that when we're talking about homosexual behavior in men (ie leaving the lesbians out of the discussion) intercourse is generally accepted to mean anal penetrative sex between two males. This is exactly the high risk type of behavior which can so readily pass on the HIV infection. And the reason men who have sex with men can't donate.

I suppose a man who was raped by another man in this fashion during some point in his life would also technically be excluded.

But I've found that if I refrain from reactionary knee jerk responses and simply re-read someone's post, I usually come to realize that they didn't really mean what I thought they did.