National "gay" blood drive aims to lift donation ban

Alright, we have the same insane law here in Canada that keeps me, somebody who is O- from donating blood. Even if they screen all blood given for any and all diseases, still though, I'm discriminated against.

The FDA and health authorities here in Canada claim it's because of higher risk of transmission among homosexuals.

This is only true because the homosexual community is far more likely to get tested for HIV and other STD's than their straight counterparts. This is what leads to the higher number of diagnosed cases within that community.

Now there's a movement to have that ban lifted.

Activists are organizing the first national gay blood drive Friday in an effort to combat the Food and Drug Administration's ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men.

The FDA bans donations from men who have had sex with other men since 1977, saying there is an increased risk of exposure to and transmission of infectious diseases -- including HIV -- in male-to-male sexual encounters.

"FDA uses multiple layers of safeguards in its approach to ensuring blood safety," the government agency's website says. The FDA screens all potential blood donors based on risk factors and signs of infections.

Blood banks have been instructed to ask male donors if they have ever had sex with a man. If the potential donor responds "yes," he is instantly removed from the donor pool for life.

Source

As mentioned, there is absolutely no reason, based in logic that should prevent homosexuals from donating blood, provided they are HIV and otherwise disease free. I think this blood drive is a good idea in the sense that it will gather data which will show how ridiculous this law is and how many lives could be further saved.

We have a blood shortage in our countries that gets worse year over year, and we are still clinging on to a fear mongering policy from almost 3 decades ago.

Thoughts?

~Tenth

Who gets to use the Gay Blood?

Will the hospital give me the option of refusing Gay Blood?
(or maybe they will keep it a secret, and not even tell me that they're giving me Gay Blood?)





Human Blood is Human Blood. If these activists were truly trying to combat some sort of segregation, then they should not refer to it as 'Gay Blood'.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

The FDA bans donations from men who have had sex with other men since 1977, saying there is an increased risk of exposure to and transmission of infectious diseases -- including HIV -- in male-to-male sexual encounters.

Blood banks have been instructed to ask male donors if they have ever had sex with a man. If the potential donor responds "yes," he is instantly removed from the donor pool for life.

So if I had sex with a man in 1976, but not since then, they would be ok with it, but still wouldn't accept my blood?

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Alright, we have the same insane law here in Canada that keeps be, somebody who is O- from donating blood.

I don't understand... Do you mean it "keeps ME" from donating?

As mentioned, there is absolutely no reason, based in logic that should prevent homosexuals from donating blood, provided they are HIV and otherwise disease free. I think this blood drive is a good idea in the sense that it will gather data which will show how ridiculous this law is and how many lives could be further saved.

I agree completely! It's ridiculous that you have O Negative and can't donate because of some fear-based fairy tale.

reply to post by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
they should not refer to it as 'Gay Blood'.

Gay Blood Drive

It's a blood drive with gay donors, not a drive for "gay blood".

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I had no idea that was still the case.

With the AMA on the side of lifting the ban this will likely end that I imagine. At least it should. This sounds like a good way of going about it.

It will be interesting to follow this and see what the outcome is.

reply to post by BrokenCircles


Yes exactly. It's ridiculous.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Yeah that's what I meant BH, I fixed the typo.

~Tenth

reply to post by Blaine91555


The AMA has been echoing this sentiment for years to be honest and nothing has been done about it.

Recently in Canada we have a supreme court case where the man was suing because his partner needed blood, he was a match donor, yet was refused at the hospital for being gay. His partner subsequently died.

This led to this policy:

Source

Which is only 'abstinent' gays can donate. Which is also ridiculous. Really the Red Cross are to blame for this whole fiasco.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower
I think bans on gays donating blood is ridiculous! Shortly after the Ryan White story (hemophiliac kid who got HIV from using blood products) they came up with the technology to destroy all viruses that could possibly be in donated blood (including HIV) and nearly all donated blood is run through this process before being used. Besides, while HIV began as being called the "gay man's disease" you most certainly run just as big of a risk contacting it from a heterosexual person as someone who is homosexual now.

reply to post by littled16


Considering the science and common sense, it's almost criminal they still carry on this discriminatory practice.

I can count at least 5 times where I could have given blood at the hospital my husband works in to help save a life and wasn't allowed.

That feeling of helplessness is quite enraging.

~Tenth

Absolutely amazing thread sir.

Thinking of all the lives lost this could have saved crushes my heart and fills me with rage.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Gay Blood Drive

It's a blood drive with gay donors, not a drive for "gay blood".

lol... I knew what they meant.
I just completely disagree with the wording they chose to use.

There are plenty of people who already think that way, as if homosexuals are an entirely different breed of Humans.(or some sort of a genetic defect)

In my opinion, by referring to it as 'the national gay blood drive', they are basically just 'feeding the trolls'. They very easily could have worded it much better.

reply to post by BrokenCircles


I agree the wording is less than helpful to their cause. Then again, it's not their fault that ignorant folk want to misconstrue what the movement is about.

~tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


That's just crazy. Hopefully this will get attention and fix the issue. It simply does not matter who the source of blood is as long as it's tested and safe.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Forgive my ignorance but do they ask if you are homosexual when you go in to donate blood? I have never done it outside of once in high school and I don't recall that question.

reply to post by Helious


Yes, the form asks:

" Have you had sexual relations with a man ( they only ask men) after 1977?"

Failing to respond truthfully can be a chargeable offense as well. I don't think the questions can be applied to minors however.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Isn't that a private matter? just tell them you only realized you were gay after the donation. problem solved

Yeah it's a pretty ignorant law imo too. i hope it makes some change happen.

Isn't gay blood rainbow colored though. this was not meant to offend. I hope everyone can find the humor in it.

The very idea that they would ban blood donations from gay men, would make me worry more about the safety of the blood in the system. After all, hetero people also get HIV, hep-c, etc.
I would have hoped the blood screening was more than just questions on a form. It sounds like they weren't very sure about purity. If they weren't sure, how could I ever be sure that blood from even a virgin, didn't have a problem?
I'm glad I've never needed blood....

I'm also glad to hear that they now have a process to make all blood donations disease free.
Since they started that particular medical process, they've had no excuse to not accept donations, other than discrimination.
That's criminal.
And it's results, have been some deaths

reply to post by snowspirit


In some of these legislators mind AIDS is still what it was believed to been when discovered. It was called GRID: gay related immuno deficiency.

I don't get why anyone's upset. Clearly we don't want people catching the Gay through blood transfusions.

On a serious note, I don't understand what the issue is if the blood is tested. If there were no tests available, and it was shown that certain segments of the population were at higher risk (I don't care which) I could understand, but that is not the case so perhaps we could do away with this nonsense.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Helious

 

Yes, the form asks:

" Have you had sexual relations with a man ( they only ask men) after 1977?"

Failing to respond truthfully can be a chargeable offense as well. I don't think the questions can be applied to minors however.

~Tenth

That's simply orwellian, is the state you live in run by southern Baptists? You have just as good a chance of contracting HIV from hedrosexual inercourse as you would from homosexual intercourse, it doesn't make any sense realistically outside of bias.

What they need to focus on is drug use that includes the sharing of needles or ask if you have had any blood transfusions. They probably ask those questions too but honestly, they should reshape the question at hand with have you had any sexual intercourse since 1977 and then should probably only do that if they wan't to have a laugh with co-workers at the people that check "no".