As I'm sure we all know, the blood supply here in the U.S. is critically low, or so the Red Cross keeps telling us. I've given blood a number of times, so every few months, the Red Cross calls me to set up an appointment to donate, and usually I will (mostly to get them to stop calling for a few months). Today, I had an appointment, since it has been a few months since my last donation. For those who haven't donated blood before, there's a number of steps before actually giving the blood. First, you have to read a packet of information that contains a number of lists and definitions that come up later in the process. The next thing is a questionnaire asking about various health history and donor behaviors. From there, they check your vital signs to make sure you're healthy enough to donate, then you finally give the blood. One of the definitions in the first packet defines sexual contact essentially as vaginal sex, anal sex, and mouth touching sex organs. It seems reasonably thorough and complete, and becomes useful during the questionnaire, where there are a number of questions involving sexual contact. One of them is something to the order of, "Have you ever had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977?" Since this is the first time I've given blood since I came out, and the first time it's come up, and given that I'm an honest person, I answered honestly-yes. I had been thinking about it beforehand, since I knew the question was coming, and I decided to answer honestly. Really, I actually hate donating blood, but I do it because it's a good thing to do, so I figured that, at the worst, I'd be deferred for a few months or something and I wouldn't get the phone calls for awhile. Well, the nurse runs the info through the computer (the questionnaire is done via computer), and then she asks me when the last time I had sexual contact with another male was. I told her. She inputs the data into the computer, and then tells me that she's going to have to defer me. As she was preparing the letter (you get a letter with a deferral, as it turns out), she was telling me how much she appreciated that I tried to donate, and she was genuinely bothered that I couldn't donate. Honestly, I could hear the pride for her job in her voice, and so I could tell that she was genuinely distraught that she was turning away a long-time donor. She hands me the letter, and as I look at it, I realize that it's an Indefinite Deferral, meaning that I can never again donate blood. On some levels, I'm actually ok with this, mostly because like I said before, I hate the actual donation process, and I've had a number of bad donation experiences (including one where I passed out afterward...). But, it also made me rather sad that, although I'm healthy and want to do a good thing, I was turned away. In truth, on some levels, it made me rather angry that the reasoning was, in essence, because I'm gay. Once I got home, I did some searching on the interweb, just to see if my disenchantment was founded. As it turns out, yep, it's founded. I think it's pretty damn shady that a straight person can essentially have unprotected sex with a prostitute and only get a year deferral. A person can snort cocaine and only get a year deferral. But, if a guy goes down on another guy, that's it, you're done, period, end of story. I don't really know what the point of this thread is... I mean, I was expecting something to come out of this, and I am fully aware of the prejudices and discriminatory practices in our society. Yet, this little thing...hurts... Ya know? :icon_sad: :tears:
It's the same in Canada--it's absolutely shameful. And it has nothing to do with health risk, which is what they say it's all about. The rule is that if you are a man (not a woman, mind you) who has had sex with a man EVEN ONCE since 1977, you are unable to donate. However, another group of people who have this kind of same "deferral" are people who have ever accepted money for sex, even once, since 1977... because of course accepting money somehow makes you more prone to having HIV or another blood-borne illness! My friend went to donate blood and was asking questions... basically if you're straight, you can go have as much risky sex as you want with as many people as you want... and then you wait 6 months and you're a-okay to donate! A gay person could have sex once, stay celibate for 20 years, and still be turned down. And beyond the double standard, there's the fact that blood testing is way more than accurate enough now to catch most, if not all, blood which is unsafe. There have been talks in both Canada and the US on lifting the ban but they never go anywhere... we're stuck in the 1980s because it's so convenient to demonise the gay male and the prostitute body as inherently diseased.
That is shameful! This is the first I've heard of it...and it really ticks me off! Like, I'm seriously angry! I've been forbidden to give blood because I was born in england, and I thought that was unfair...this is just completely unjustified! Maybe if they didn't have these backward rules, they wouldn't have low a low supply of blood!
??? Is that because of Mad Cow? I've never heard of generic ban on UK-born people. Maybe it's just a US thing.
I know it seems unfair, but I think it has more to do with statistics. The statistics are changing though. HIV is certainly not the only disease to be concerned with. Some diseases still do not show up in tests very quickly. Please hear me when I say I agree that it seems unfair and prejudiced, but just remember you are an average person. It is the extremes that skew the statistics. Remember that YOU are not the ones they are concerned about, even though you still have to "pay the price". My friend can't donate blood because she went to Africa in her lifetime. She is not diseased, but she still can't give blood - ever. It is all about statistics - remember, the statistics are changing in the direction of the "average" gay guy.
I guess that what I don’t understand is how does the risk of spreading disease with men having sex with a men differ from a women having sex with a men. Doesn’t the “seed” get planted no matter if it is in a bum or a... *whispers* vagina? Vaginas scare me
I think wtinal does have a valid point, but how are those statistics still true. Shure HIV was a gay disease, BEFORE I WAS BORN. That reminds me of the HIV pamphlet we weere given in "family life" class, saying that Gay people are more likely to get AIDS. Is this true? I very much doubt it. So i am happy to say i didnt get A 100 on that test. Because i disagree with that fact. Anyway. Thats my way of sticking it to the people who promote ideas like that.
This issue could have a long debate. The only thing I find important is to realize that current statistics today still warrant the caution. And they are less and less about the stereotype once presented toward gay males. The person that draws my blood is a gay male. He knows the risk is higher, and because he cannot donate his blood, he has chosen to help get the blood collected. And he will wait for the statistical significance to go down until he can donate again. By the way, getting an 100 is not the most important thing in the world - so going with your gut was probably a good choice. I might have responded to the question by saying "under what conditions and statistics are we looking at for the answer to this quesiton.
Yes; HIV was a "gay" disease before you were born. But who is donating the blood? People who were arond long before you were born (at least here...) I DON'T agree with generalization. They test it [blood] all anyways, why not just accept the blood??
In Melbourne Australia, it's only a 12 month deferral for having Man on Man sex (or for a woman to have sex with a bisexual male).
Blood banks and blood processors (testers) are overwhelmed already. If they accepted any blood, from anyone, they would have a much higher volume to wade through when testing it. And, as always, the more volume you have, the higher the error rate is going to be. And yes, they test the blood anyways. The problem is that HIV can live in blood for a long time before showing up. So, they are trying to avoid the costly mistake of giving someone unknowingly tainted blood. It is a hard issue to tangle with, because it does smell of bias or something negative, but I am not sure that is the case - with some yes, but with some no. Ten years down the road will be interesting with this issue.
well to bad for them. they loose out on blood that could save lives. their problem. really sad though...
I've known about this for a long time. Just hearing this in that.. I knew about it in Canada when my favorite Canadian show "Degrassi: The Next Generation" did an actual episode about it. It is sad and wrong... they test the blood anyways. When I give... I know it is wrong... but I'm lying. Unless my blood type is like... AB.... then I'll just not care... (YES I don't know what my blood type is...) If it is something needed badly I'll lie until the day I die. If I have something generally unneeded then well... Honesty baby! lol
Although statistics still skew against gays when it comes to things like AIDS, it's also worth noting that current testing only allows for a gap of no more than about three weeks for HIV/AIDS to show up in donated blood. Given that it sometimes takes months to process donated blood into the various products it's usually made into, there's absolutely no reason why the blood couldn't be collected, tested, stored for three weeks, and tested again. And realistically, given that gays are widely accepted as less than 10% of the population, allowing donation would not statistically increase risk to the blood supply by a whole lot. I mean, I can even understand why this is the case if you have visited Africa, since statistically, Africa is a scary land of death by disease (AIDS, Ebola, and countless others have all started there). But really what this boils down to in my mind is that there is still a rift in perception regarding gay and straight people. Like I said before, a straight person can go to any street corner and pay a few bucks to get laid, snort cocaine while doing it, and then only get one year deferral from donating blood. If it happens multiple times, it's no big deal, since they count from date of last occurrence. But, if you're a male that has gone down on another male once since 1977, that's it. Like I said, it shocked the hell out of me. I guess on the upside, I won't have them pestering me to come give blood anymore...
That's exactly what I was thinking. One of the few, it would seem. In the UK gay people cannot give blood ever. They'll have our organs when we die though....
