Gay man lied when giving blood.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Tower-Union, Oct 8, 2009.

  1. Tower-Union macrumors 6502

    Tower-Union

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    #1
    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/10/06/11327066-sun.html


    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:
     
  2. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #2
    The ban is stupid, but anyone, gay or straight, who donates blood after having an STD is a moron.
     
  3. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #3
    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.
     
  4. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #4
    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?
     
  5. DiamondMac macrumors 68040

    DiamondMac

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    #5
    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.
     
  6. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #6
    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.

    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.
     
  7. jmann macrumors 604

    jmann

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Location:
    bump on a log in a hole in the bottom of the sea
    #7
    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
     
  8. Tower-Union thread starter macrumors 6502

    Tower-Union

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    #8
    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?"
     
  9. jmann macrumors 604

    jmann

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Location:
    bump on a log in a hole in the bottom of the sea
    #9
    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.
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    Agreed completely.
     
  11. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #11
    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.
     
  12. Unspoken Demise macrumors 68040

    Unspoken Demise

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Location:
    >9,000
    #12
    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.
     
  13. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #13
    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.
     
  14. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #14
    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:
     
  15. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #15
    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
     
  16. Unspoken Demise macrumors 68040

    Unspoken Demise

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Location:
    >9,000
    #16
    Ah, very true points. Suggestion retracted. :eek:
    Well we can all agree this is an out dated law.
     
  17. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #17
    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.*************/uploads/smilies/panic.gif Foreign cooties!
     
  18. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #19
    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.
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    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.
     
  20. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #21
    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.
     
  21. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #22
    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
     
  22. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #23
    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.
     
  23. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #24
    *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.
     
  24. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    Just look at Africa.
     

Share This Page