Today I gave blood for the first time. We were going though the questions and I answered yes to the have you had sexual contact with another male. A thing came up on the screen saying I couldn't give blood. I wiggled my way around and said that it wasn't actually sexual contact by their guidelines, which is a lie. But the whole time I was giving blood I was thinking about how dumb it is that any kind of sexual contact with a guy (before 1977 of course ((wtf?))) would prevent me from giving blood. Does this bother anyone else?
I remember in leadership class i was organizing the Blood event (whats it called? i forgot lol) and my gay friends were pissed off during lunch that they couldn't give free blood, and my reaction was..... "You had sex!?" lolzzz Anyway, i do think it's wrong because not only is that sexist but it shows that these organizations don't even check the blood donations for hiv or aids. It's like they mix them like that. eww Personally, i always opted NO to give blood, because at the time i felt like 2 bags of blood would make me faint. And besides, i don't want to give my seksi blood away Even if it was my grade on the line.
They prolly threw your blood away after taking it, given the reply you gave. They do test blood as well. My oldest sister was one of the first to contract AIDS via blood transfusion during surgery. It was in 1977 or so before AIDS was on the radar. She died 12 yrs ago, rip. I can understand the cold reality of people and organizations not wanting to take the risk. Like i just read under another thread. Pretend YOU just had unprotected sex with someone you don't know. Its not an easy situation, either way.
In the US, all donated/banked blood is tested for HIV1 and HIV2. I have seen cases where people who unknowingly donated blood who later got the call from the blood bank that they had tested positive for HIV. It's also tested for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, elevated liver enzymes and syphilis. The restriction on men who have sex with men (MSM) dates back to before the days when blood was tested for HIV. When the HIV antibody test became available, the blood banks initially refused to test donated blood citing the cost. After public pressure and a few lawsuits, they now test for HIV. It's been brought up many times that these restrictions are stupid and out-of-date now that all blood is tested. But the blood banking industry still refuses to change the policy.
The DAY after i have sex with a man for the first time, guess where im going? To my local blood clinic to lie my face off, pretend im straight (if i can pull that one off), and donate lots and lots of blood. Part two of my plan is to run away screaming "HAHAHA YOUZ GOTZ AIDZ BLOODZ!" but i might re-think that bit...
I'm sorry for your loss. That must have been devastating. Yes, they test blood. Yes its discriminatory against gays and hopefully soon that is going to change. Even Red Cross workers believe it is wrong.
Actually it is the FDA that sets the restriction. The American Red Cross, AABB and America's Blood Center have requested that the restriction be changed to 1 year since last MSM contact. However the FDA rejected the request. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy
It bothers me terribly... it's one of the main reasons I truly believe gay rights are not anywhere near as "advanced" in Western democracies as a lot of people seem to think they are. The idea that gay men are, irrevocably and inherently, "diseased" has got to be one of the most insulting and dehumanizing examples of homophobia ever. So yes, if you EVER think you are actually not a 2nd class citizen, consider the ongoing blood ban. Consider that while blood banks across Canada and the US are begging people for blood, they will not take the blood of perfectly healthy gay guys who may not have had sex with others guys for weeks/months/even years. (This is not even getting into what kind of sex they've been having [protected or not] and whether their partners are even HIV+.) If you're straight, however, you can have however much unsafe sex you want and then 6 months later, you're *poof* magically "clean." And that's not even getting into the other groups of people who are subject to the "indefinite" ban. Hope you have never, ever, not once 20 years ago, taken money for sex, because if you have, you are (and forever will be) a prostitute by the blood donation guidelines, and as such, you are (forever and always) banned from giving blood just like your fellow "dirty" gay male brethren. Yes, the blood donation (and now organ donation in Canada as of last year--thank you, Stephen Harper, you pathetic excuse for a leader [not to mention human being]) bans really hit home exactly how far we've yet to go in terms of equality.
well and, the particularly ridiculous part is... gay men are not even the largest risk group for HIV any more, at least not in the US. Can you imagine the outrage and uproar (not to mention the shortage of blood that would occur) if they suddenly announced that they coulld not accept blood from heterosexual african-american women? But because we're gay men, it's somehow OK.
i wont give blood its far to special and i dont trust people... but i hate how do you have sex with men...well your inferior then your blood isnt good enough get lost freal...attitude it just grinds me. because as soon as you say yes to msm your auto matically labeled as if thats who you are.... last time i checked anyone can be infected.
I realize that I made a shift in my last post that wasn't clear. The first couple of paragraphs were details about HIV testing in the US (I'm not as familiar with the testing in other countries). The US testing requirements are compliant with testing recommendations from the World Health Organization. The remaining paragraphs about the blood banking industry and their insistence upon asking people about their sexual history. This is not just an issue in the US (outside the US the FDA has no authority)- it affects many of the major players in the blood banking industry (according to Wikpedia link you provided- Algeria, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong (PRC), Iceland, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). We've been fighting the FDA and AABB industry on this for 25 years. It just perpetuates the stereotype that AIDS is a "gay disease". You're correct that the AABB finally asked the FDA to change their rules... in 2006- 21 years after the policy went into effect! It was especially irksome that their 2006 change of heart was excused with a explanation that there was a shortage and they needed more donors. *sigh*
that disgusts me, it really does! How can they legally ask you that question and then refuse your blood?! Surely that comes under discrimination? Do they do it in the u.k too? I.ve never given blood but i was thinking of doing it this summer.
It almost made me laugh too, because before the questions, the lady was impressed by how well my iron level was, and how good my blood pressure and pulse and such were and then her face almost went pale when that indefinite deferment thing popped up on the computer.
Yeah they do. They seemed to come quite close a few months ago to amending that, but in the end they stuck with the current system. It's worth reading this statement: http://www.blood.co.uk/pdfdocs/position_statement_exclusion.pdf Basically IMO the situation sucks, but the decision that's been made was made with good intentions, if that makes any sense. It's not directly about denying gay people the oppurtunity to donate (under the UK Blood Service anyway), it's about preserving the safety of the blood supply, and whether we like it or not, we are a high risk demographic. That doesn't mean that all gay people are riddled with aids and hepititus, but as a percentage it's higher than heterosexuals. So basically, until you have sex you're good. I think afterwards, things get a little bit murky. If you've been tested for HIV/Aids/Hep and been given the all clear, then I suppose there's nothing to stop you going and being selective when answering those questions, but only in the knowledge that you do not carry the risks which those questions seek to eradicate. Personally, I don't know what I'll do when that time comes. I suspect maybe it's more trouble than it's worth should I be recognised at the donor centre, and tbh I'm a bit of a chicken when it comes to breaking the rules But I think it's important to try and bare in mind that this isn't about denying our rights as a community, it's about trying to protect people who will recieve this blood. Ultimately, if I put my sexuality to one side for a second, as a person who one day might need a transfusion to save my life, or as the relative or friend of such persons, I'd rather be denied the oppurtunity to donate than me or others be exposed to a higher chance of recieving infected blood. I don't like the rule, but I appreciate it, if that makes sense.
Well it went all the way to the Supreme Court in Canada (and our Supreme Court is just a *smidge* better than the US one, let me tell you :lol and if I remember my lawyer friend's explanation of their ruling, it is perfectly legal to refuse to let certain people donate blood because donating blood is a voluntary exercise and being refused to allow to donate it does not infringe on any fundamental right. Which is bullshit, of course, because being refused to allow to donate it completely and utterly sets you apart as outcast from the "good" "clean" parts of society that are allowed to donate. Essentially the decision was twisted in such a way as to allow Canadian Blood Services to discriminate on a technicality. Somehow they didn't notice how donating blood was being framed in society by the CBS' own ads, which for years had the slogan: Blood--it's in you to give. I mean--everyone knows donating blood is about community participation--you are essentially helping save the lives of strangers in your community. But gay male blood is, according to CBS, inherently tainted. Moreover, gay men are held to completely different standards than our straight counterparts, all because (as Calchip pointed out) HIV/AIDS is still conceived of as a "gay disease," which has never been the case and is particularly ridiculous if you live anywhere outside the Western/Northern world. But we are the easy target of campaigns to villify.
Yes, that completely bugs me too, on a personal level, because I think I have a relatively rare blood type and I'm ridiculously healthy and I can only imagine how many lives my blood could have helped to save if I'd been able to donate for the last, oh, 15 years. And it's also totally moronic given that before the ban, people in the gay community donated blood at a much higher rate than the community at large. So there's a new positive stereotype we can all celebrate about gay people: we're very civic-minded.
I would have agreed with that back in the 1980s. But now the fastest growing group of HIV infections in the US and in world at large is women of color. If they refused to accept donations from black women, it would be seen as discriminatory. The standard isn't the same when it comes to gay men. And I don't see the FDA or the blood banking industry being as concerned about the sexual habits of other groups-anyone who has had unprotected sex- male, female, gay, straight, whatever- is in a high risk category. They just seem to be more concerned about men who have some sort of vague "sexual activity" that involves another man.
NO NO NO NO NO NO! It's totally NOT about protecting people! That's the complete and utter lie they repeat and repeat to make their discrimination seem legitimate! If it were about protecting the blood supply, the indefinite ban would have been modified YEARS ago, because every single unit of blood that is donated is tested quite thoroughly for a number of infections. And they ask people questions that they NEVER verify (and thankfully never COULD verify), so really those "screening" questions are bogus. The sole purpose, at this late stage in the game, of questions about mens' sexual activity with other men is to discriminate against gay people. A girlfriend of mine went to donate blood a while back and was denied because she didn't know the "sexual history" of all the people she'd had sexual contact with in the last 6 months. I.e. she was deemed too "promiscuous" to donate (which is garbage anyway). But if she waited six months where she either wasn't having sex or was only having it with one person (or maybe a bunch of people whose "sexual histories" she did know *rolls eyes*), she'd be magically "safe" to donate. There is NO period, not weeks or months or even YEARS, after which gay men are deemed "safe." The ban is indefinite, which means FOREVER. So straight people can "cleanse" themselves by being good little monogamists for 6 months. Gay guys (and others on indefinite deferral) cannot. Not after 6 months or 6 years or 20 years. No matter WHAT our sexual behaviour in that time, no matter if we come to donate with a certified certificate of HIV negativity--there is simply NO exception for gay men. But there is for straight people. That's discrimination and it's not at all about "protecting" the blood supply. I would totally support the ban if it were the mid-80s and people had no clue what was making all these mainly gay guys sick, but it's over TWENTY years later and we know exactly how HIV works and how to test for it. Gay men are not allowed to donate because it makes straight bigots feel their blood supply is safer because everyone knows faggots are filthy and promiscuous--in total denial of science and reason. This is prejudice of the most vile and sickening kind, and it runs deep and very, very strong.