It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gay Man tried to donate blood,Red Cross sayd NO !

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
EDIT : Removed the mans name from subject since it is kinda missleading.

Mr Cain says he will not give up his fight for gay men who have safe
sex to give blood.

What in the .... does that have to do with anything?
If you are an safe practecing gay and have no diseases, there shouldn't be any issue about that person donating blood..

I do not want blood from a gay man my self, I'm not an homophob, but I rather not have the blood, ofcourse as an 'only resort' Id take it , but, I'm not sure..

Red Cross link here.


He said he claimed discrimination on the basis that the Red Cross has a legal obligation to ban gay donors and because, in the absence of conclusive data on the risk associated with low-risk gay sex, the Red Cross must act on a worst case scenario basis.

"I am pleased the tribunal has agreed with my fundamental claim that there are monogamous, safe, gay men who have a lower HIV risk than some of the straight people who can currently give blood," he said.

"It's disappointing that they have not followed through on this conclusion by allowing these men to donate, but it's a step in the right direction that I and other people will build on it.

"This was a knife-edge decision in which the tribunal erred on the side of caution, but given how much of my case it agreed with, I am confident the next time this matter goes to court the outcome will be a new policy."

Mr Cain says he will take his case back to the tribunal when more research on gay blood donation emerges.


[edit on 27-5-2009 by ChemBreather]




posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
i've seen that question on the questionnaire you fill out before you donate blood and thought it was fairly silly alright, unless of course the red cross knows something about gay sex we don't.

i assume that they test the blood donated for various diseases but, who knows, maybe not. it seems a fairly homophobic stance for the red cross to take regardless.

on a side note, i didn't know michael cain was gay.

[edit on 27/5/09 by pieman]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


I think you just contradicted yourself. You said that as long as someone was healthy they should be able to give blood, but then you said you wouldn't want to take a chance and get blood from a gay man.

Ya' can't have it both ways.

Or did I read your post wrong?



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
They should test ALL blood they get anyway. So wether it's from a gay man/woman or a straight man/woman, it shouldn't matter. they're crying out for people to donate blood, there's a massive shortage and a big demand. To say that gay people can't give blood is, well, a bit prejudiced. I could understand if the gay was catching, but as far as i understand, it's not. And straight people have lots of unprotected sex too, STIs are on the rise in straight people. The binge drinking culture we (at least in the UK) live in, is the main catalyist for this i think. Loosened inhibitions on booze = lots of free and easy sexual encounters. Look in gay pubs, they give out free condoms. they're activly trying to promote safe sex, as they know that sex is on the cards for alot of their customers.

I did a questionaire to give blood a few years ago, and that's when i found out that i was a dirty desease ridden freak. (in the eyes of the NHS) When there's such a high call for blood, especially rare blood types, then this is so counter productive it's mad. I mean, who would really refuse blood if they knew it was from a gay person (not that you ever find out who the blood comes from) But if it was that or die, seriously, would people care?



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
HIV is a lentevirus which means that you may not test positive for the disease on the day you give blood even though you have HIV. Since gay men and IV drug users are a high risk group for HIV, it makes sense to take such precautions.

It has nothing to do with discrimination. It has everything to do with high risk groups.

All blood IS tested. Your blood can be refused for anemia or any number of other things that aren't even contagious.

As far as condoms protecting you from STD's....condom makers don't even guarantee that condoms will protect you from unwanted pregnancies much less deadly diseases. Handing out condoms at a gay bar is like handing out bullet removal kits at a gun range.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


No you didnt read wrong, maybe I just haven't thought too muchh about this..
I know and agree with you..I dont mind gay people, and I waould take any Healthy disease free blood. That is my stand.....



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Fellas, fellas.. this thread is a dead duck in the water! Why?

Because Michael Cain is NOT Michael Caine.

MICHAEL CAINE!!!!


Of course, Michael Caine, the famous actor, isn't gay. He's been married twice and has two children!

This 'Michael Cain', fellow.. who on earth knows who he is. Just some random gay guy they lined up for the story interview.

For goodness' sake, people..


[edit on 27-5-2009 by RiotComing]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Who cares if it was "THE" Michael Cain(e)?

It doesn't matter if the person complaining about the issue is gay, straight, famous or not.

Btw, being married and having children does not preclude one from being gay.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 


Your right, just because theres a wife and kids involved doesn't exclude homosexuality. Just take a look at Tom Cruise


but really, who in their right mind would think micheal caine was gay? that mans a straight shooter if ever i've seen one.


love and peace



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Some reasons for exclusion from donating blood...


Currently we exclude people from donating who:
* Have resided in the UK between 1980 and 1996 for a total(cumulative) time of 6 months or more,
or
* Have received blood transfusions in the UK since 1 January 1980.


Unfortunately, because of the extensive time period covered by the deferral and the possibility of unknowing exposure to beef or beef products, it is not possible to exempt vegetarians who have resided in the UK for a cumulative period of six months or more during the risk years.


(So should Vegetarians U/Kers who live here take it to court too or just accept the rules that they can't give blood?)

You will not be able to give blood if, in the past 12 months, you have/or had:


* Sex with another man, even ‘safer sex’ using a condom (if you are a man)
* Sex with a man who has had sex with another man (if you are a woman)
* A partner who has hepatitis B or hepatitis C
* A partner who has ever injected themselves with drugs not prescribed by a doctor or dentist
* Sex with a male or female sex worker
* A blood transfusion
* Hepatitis or been in contact with hepatitis
* Been in prison.
* Sex with anyone who lives in, or has come from, a country considered to have a high rate of HIV infection


The reason being......


The deferral of males who have had male to male sex is based on two factors: the statistically higher incidence of some blood borne diseases (such as HIV) and the existence of ‘window period’ infections.

In terms of statistics, the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research (University of New South Wales) reports that men with a history of male to male sexual contact continue to make up the majority of people diagnosed with AIDS and HIV infection in Australia. These statistics are regularly reviewed by ARCBS.

A window period infection is the time between contraction of a disease and the ability to detect the infection using currently available screening tests. This window period contributes to the risk of the disease not being detected and being passed on in the blood supply.

In Australia, State and Territory legislation and governments require that the ARCBS screens blood donors on the basis of declared issues.


You can never donate blood if......


* You are HIV positive
* You have hepatitis C
* You have ever injected yourself or been injected with drugs not prescribed by a doctor or dentist (even if this was only once)


So, even at age 16 say for example you tried Heroin, then you can never donate blood. This may seem silly but its the rules.

And besides, if a gay person was REFUSED A BLOOD TRANSFUSION because he was gay, that would be a violation of his human rights.
To be rejected from DONATING blood isn't a life threatening situation for him, so they should get over themselves.

Gay men aren't the only ones who can't donate.

Just to add, something I found amusing which is also on the website is...


Is there any upper weight limit for blood donors?

Yes, this is related to the maximum safe capacity of our donor chairs which may vary from site to site.


Don't see the Obese getting on their high horses because some won't be able to give blood for a silly reason. I think some people take the rejection of being knocked back for giving blood WAYYYYY to personally.

www.donateblood.com.au...

Edit to add: ANYONE can put aside their own blood supply for themselves or friends and relative to use. If it's that's much of a big deal, then why don't they just do that? And edited also because the STORY has been changed since I first posted.




[edit on 27-5-2009 by Flighty]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Gays aren't he only ones banned from giving blood.

I lived in Germany in the late 80's and can't give blood because of "Mad Cow" disease that was in that area. What's the difference between a gay saying "I'm safe" or me saying "I'm a vegitarian"? Chances are we'd both be lying!!!



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
If Mr Cain's reason to donate blood is because of altruistic reasons, can he not, with his altruistic self, accept and understand the reluctance of the Red Cross to accept his donation?

Is it the Ego speaking then?

Maybe it is discrimination but is it wrong to err on the side of caution? Who can say we know everything and all data about HIV or STDs?

Is it not right of the Red Cross to take only blood from the statistically safest of the lot?

Who is infringing on who's rights?



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Glad i do not have to give blood.

I wonder why this sort of thing does not get any news.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Since when?

I've plenty of homosexual acquaintances and we all give blood regularly without any hassle.

There is a system of privacy in place with the little "dont use my blood sticker" so those with HIV and the like dont have to stick out during an office trip type blood donation and can keep their privacy.

Either the RC in the U.S. has been breaking their own rules or the RC group involved in this bizarre incident is making up their own.

Nobody is preventing homosexuals from donating blood. Maybe in regions where being gay gets you stoned to death they are but not anywhere in the Western world. It's like bizarro world or something.

Oh noes, I think I got some gay blood on me!!! Get it off quick before I start disco dancing!!

Ridiculous.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
So why would you not want to receive blood from a homosexual person? Not that you would get to chose whose blood you got... (Yes, doctor- I would prefer blood from a brown-haired, blue-eyed, 5'10 straight female with a doctorate in particle physics, please?) Gay or straight, the blood is tested. It's all the same. And it is all used to keep you from DYING. I would say a few drops of "gay blood" would be better than the alternative.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
It is pretty ridiculous, someone can say they are gay, but only had sex a couple times and they can't give blood. And a heterosexual can have as much sex as they want, and that's ok.

Black women have a high rate of HIV from what I've read, should they be banned? Imagine the outcry from that if it happened.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by ghaleon12]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Wow I did not know this. I thought there was virtually no difference in the type of people infected only difference I thought was what area of the world you live in considering some countries have a real problem with it.

So if I was to go and mark myself down as Gay and then tell them I have never had sexual relations with anybody what would they do?

Actually I might try that just for fun next time they come around lol.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Right, I'm going to share a little with you guys... Prepare...


I'm a gay man, and I have NEVER had anal intercourse.

Yet, every straight friend I know who has shared such details with me, has!

That is enough to tell anyone how stupidly insane this assumption is.


And these are so-called "medical professionals", hmm.

And, in regard to the OP and his statement about not accepting blood from a gay donor, you know that doing so won't make you gay right?


If you laugh at that point, what if the person was a nazi? What if they had been ginger? What if they had been *insert descriptive term here*?!



How would you know? And what difference does it make to you where it came from?

Like it or not, your opinion is a little homophobic, though I doubt you mean it to be.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I found an interesting article...


community.wegohealth.com...





•Although African Americans make up 13% of the U.S. population, they account for almost half (49%) of the HIV/AIDS cases.



Wow, that I did not know.




posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic
They should test ALL blood they get anyway. So wether it's from a gay man/woman or a straight man/woman,


look it's not about who you think is hot, it's about

f****** a**

and the risk of various infections that goes with it. the a** really isn't made to withstand such treatment and is an easy pathway for infections. iow, gender should not matter, only if you're engaging in anal penetrative business. the question on gay contact is therefore baed on the ASSumption that only gay men f*** a**. that's not true, from what i've heard.

clear enough?

i especially like this line:


* Been in prison.


so, if you're in prison you get f***** in the a** whether you like it or not? interesting. so, if you're ever caught and have to fear going to prison, better slug it out with the cops until you're swiss cheese - unless you enjoy taking it in the a**.

[edit on 2009.5.27 by Long Lance]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join