Blood/plasma donation discrimination!!!

You know what REALLY irrirtates me? It's not gay men as a group that's at high risk of having HIV. It's the subpopulation that is extremely promesticus.
I'm sure that the population of straight guys who frequent prositutes and bathhouses is equally at risk for HIV.
 
That's what I thought too. But I have seen gay men being turned down with my own eyes. :(
I have gay friends who have donated blood. I guess it happened where you were.
 
Oh, that's just a warning to let you know that you are at risk if you did the following... blah blah. It doesn't say that you cannot donate blood if you (as a male) had sex with another male. It simply suggests that you take those guidelines into consideration when pondering on whether you have AIDS/HIV or not.

You would think it's just a warning saying you MAY be at risk, but if you fall into any of those, you are deferred permanantly if you are honest. And it is BULL!
 
You would think it's just a warning saying you MAY be at risk, but if you fall into any of those, you are deferred permanantly if you are honest. And it is BULL!

I've seen people who waited in line for hours only to be turned down for several of the bullshit reasons listed on the website. Visiting certain countries, having had anal sex, whatever else. Reasons that aren't even based in medical fact.
 
I've seen people who waited in line for hours only to be turned down for several of the bullshit reasons listed on the website. Visiting certain countries, having had anal sex, whatever else. Reasons that aren't even based in medical fact.

They are based in medical fact... just OLD medical facts that are wrong now. They were right when they were made, they just need to update into the 21st century!
 
They are based in medical fact... just OLD medical facts that are wrong now. They were right when they were made, they just need to update into the 21st century!

I know. But they're in serious need of an update. Therefore it's no longer medical fact.
 
I've seen people who waited in line for hours only to be turned down for several of the bullshit reasons listed on the website. Visiting certain countries, having had anal sex, whatever else. Reasons that aren't even based in medical fact.

Why you think more and more places are boycotting the Red Cross? Not only their questioning of budget spending, and allotment of funds are under attack, their policies are under scrutiny as well.

Hell, in Canada, we got a case against them that caused Newfoundland to boycott all blood from the Red Cross a few years ago.

Sources are valid (I checked them out years ago):

Wikipedia said:
Until September 28, 1998, the Canadian Red Cross was responsible for all blood services in Canada. On the recommendation of the Krever Commission, the organization was removed from this position and replaced by the Canadian Blood Services because of the nation-wide controversy when it was revealed that between 1986 and 1990 it had irresponsibly,[3], and knowingly [4] supplied tainted blood to patients. In 1994, an investigation found that 95 percent of hemophiliacs who used blood products supplied by the Canadian Red Cross before 1990 had contracted Hepatitis C.[5] According to the Krever Commission, approximately 85 percent of those infections could have been avoided.

More than 1000 Canadians were infected with HIV and 20,000 contracted Hepatitis C from blood transfusions given by the Red Cross during that period.[6]

The Canadian Red Cross was fined $5,000 for its role in the tainted blood scandal and agreed to plead guilty to distributing a contaminated drug. It agreed to give 1.5 million dollars to the University of Ottawa for a research endowment fund as well as a scholarship for family members of those affected. In exchange, six criminal charges against the Red Cross were dropped.[5]

The then-director of the Red Cross, Dr. Roger Perrault, was on trial for his role in the scandal. The first trial resulted in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice acquitting him on charges of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and six criminal nuisance charges were dropped in January 2008 when "there no longer remains a reasonable prospect of conviction in this case".[7]

Psst... I was one of the 20,000. ;)
 
I know. But they're in serious need of an update. Therefore it's no longer medical fact.

The only way it will update is if we get these conservative extremeists out of the government, then something can be done because there won't be people wanting to crucify gays for being gay. Until that day comes, there will be stupid laws about it.
 
The only way it will update is if we get these conservative extremeists out of the government, then something can be done because there won't be people wanting to crucify gays for being gay. Until that day comes, there will be stupid laws about it.

When some friends and I contacted the Red Cross to ask why they had those guidelines in place, they said the guidelines were created by the FDA and they had to follow them since blood is considered a drug under FDA regulation.

So I guess we have to wait for the FDA to update their guidelines.
 
The only way it will update is if we get these conservative extremeists out of the government, then something can be done because there won't be people wanting to crucify gays for being gay. Until that day comes, there will be stupid laws about it.

Nothing to do with concervitive extremists. We don't have them in Britain. We've been under labour for the last 10 years and our goverment is definately secular.

However, gays are still barred from giving blood.
I should know since I tried to give blood myself a few years back. I'll do it again soon enough but have a few things to sort out with my sight first.
 
Oh, that's just a warning to let you know that you are at risk if you did the following... blah blah. It doesn't say that you cannot donate blood if you (as a male) had sex with another male. It simply suggests that you take those guidelines into consideration when pondering on whether you have AIDS/HIV or not.


It specifically says you cannot donate blood if you are 'at risk' for HIV, and having sex with another man puts you 'at risk' by their definition. It's definitely not out of the goodness of their hearts. Remember, the blood is ALWAYS tested for HIV before being distributed out anyways. It's not like you have to sit there and try to 'self diagnose' or risk infecting a bunch of people.
 
They were right when they were made, they just need to update into the 21st century!
Yes.....back in the old days it was VERY common for gays as a population to be very promesticus. Now a lot of gay men have mellowed out and coupled up.
 
I can't give blood as I had a transfusion when I was a baby, in 1985. I always feel guilty when I see the adverts for it on tv. Nice to know they have faith in their own transfusion system!
 
I cant donate right now due to having heart problems. Luckily, I donated on Labor day weekend and the heart problems showed up a few weeks later. So, at least I was able to do my duty up till the last minute.
 
It bothers me as well. Yes, males who have sex with males have a higher chance of having it, but so do prostitutes, drug addicts and other high at-risk groups and they aren't listed on the list.

It is discrimination.
 
Yes, males who have sex with males have a higher chance of having it, but so do prostitutes, drug addicts and other high at-risk groups and they aren't listed on the list.
Yes, and it's basicly a subpopulation of gay men. I'm sure that a gay man who has been in a partnership for over 20 years(my uncles) is very low risk.
 
It bothers me as well. Yes, males who have sex with males have a higher chance of having it, but so do prostitutes, drug addicts and other high at-risk groups and they aren't listed on the list.

It is discrimination.

Yeah they are! Anyone who has traded sex for money or drugs is not allowed to donate. You must also have never used needles for drugs.
 
as far as I know, heterosexual can have anal sex. I never tried it, nor I want to but I know some people do.
 
Back
Top