Donating Blood (merged)

Donating blood has always been a part of my adult life. The Red Cross -- I thought -- pretty much had the monopoly on blood donations. These days I give at the hospital in which I work. What annoys me is the questionnaire that is asked with regards to a person's sexual activity. Blood can be screened for disease, however if you admit to having had sex with someone of the same gender (even once) your blood becomes permanently disqualified.

I find this very disturbing because I don't like having to lie about something like this.

 

Unfortunately, federal regulations prohibit acceptance of blood donations from ANY male who has had sex with other males. The questionnaire you objected to is required by the FDA. If you refused to answer the relevant question, your blood donation will be thrown out.

These regulations have been in effect since 1985, under an executive order by then-President Ronald Reagan. The obscenity of this is that gay and bisexual men are the ONLY people who are permanently barred from donating blood. No such ban exists for people with a history of illicit drug use -- the fastest-growing segment of new HIV cases in the U.S. since 1995.

It galls me that, to date, no legal challenge has been made to this patently discriminatory ban.

-- Skeeter

 

well, even if I hadn't had sex with another guy, I still couldn't give blood because I was stationed in England. Why, you ask ? Mad cow disease. I was last in Engand in 1988, thats 17 years ago, you'd think that by now if there WAS something wrong it shoulda shown it's ugly head by now. the block out date is somthing like jan 1, 1980 to dec 31, 1997.

that is unless I lie about it.

also, I have a genetic condition called Neurofibromatosis and that prevents me from being on the organ and bone marrow donor list. I am in great shape otherwise. so my organs will just get cooked when I die (being cremated)

 

mad cow can lay dormant for a very long time before it comes up.

 

This IS very disturbing! I refuse to lie. Obviously, they don't need blood too badly.

If they don't want my blood, I'll keep it. Simple as that.

 

i donate plasma and have to lie twice a week, i have regular tests done to check fro std's so i don't worry about it, at the same time i'm not having sex with anyone at the moment, so i dn't feel bad whatsoever in lying to them

 

I don't want to lie either, but it's strange that the Red cross expects people to be forthcoming about their sexual preference yet it's used against them in the end...but they need to be aware of the fact most people who've had gay experiences will not admit to it to their best friend, so how will they put a yes check mark in a questionnaire that is handed back to an agency that may or may not have ties with the government?

Plus I can't see how they can justify turning down "gay blood" and take donations from straights who have had dozens of partners in the months previous. How could they possibly feel confident about it?

 

Are you serious? That is totally crazy. Someone should sue. This is really dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

I'm sure people have. People still connect male homosexuality with AIDS. Of course, even if that was true, they test the blood for AIDS anyway. It's bad enough that they bar off a group of people based on a stereotype, it's much worse that it's something that they were going to test anyway.

It saddens me that society wants to stop a group of people from helping people. Man, you dare you be nice.

 

wow thats some crazy bullshit.

 

I worked in corporate world then & the place I worked had the Red Cross come in regularly for blood drives. Being the good, caring, citizen I am I stopped in there after eating lunch & filled out their form & sat down in the waiting area. The gentleman who read it called me over to his table with a dirty look on his face. He just openly told me that because of the danggers of AIDS they will no longer accept donations from men who have engaged in homosexual activities. No concern for privacy, no regard for the obvious discrimination. I wasn't out at all there so I was at that point in a panic. Fortunately no one who actually knew me was there. I quickly said something like OK & got up & left. All the while knowing that they test the stuff anyhow. I wouldn't have even bothered if I didn't think that it was going to be tested. I have been tested regularly but as I said I did feel as if I dodged the bullet, having a former sex partner die. There was still the what if it's somehow lying dormant thing in my mind.

On the other hand in a scewed sort of way I do understand their point. Sure it seems like overreaction & obviously put in place by an ignorant administration. Remember the "advice" from that same administration that gays should follow anal intercourse with a bleach enema? The people who had contracted HIV from transfussions were still fairly in fresh memory. If they screwed up & missed some blood that did have HIV it would be at that time a death sentance for someone.

 

Indeed, someone should sue. But it's a federal regulation -- and there's no federal law prohibiting anti-gay discrimination. Until the homophobic theo-fascists who control the Republican Party are ousted from Congress, no such law will be forthcoming.

-- Skeeter

 

A BLEACH ENEMA! What a horrible idea!

HIV is undetectable, but still present, for up to 6 months after you contract it. That is the theory behind this ban. The populations with the fastest growing rate of HIV infection are the elderly and African-American women. I wonder if they will ban thim too?

I doubt it.

 

I understand the ban...but it doesn't mean it's right

The problem is that it excludes a large group of people without making any types of nuances between individuals (if that's not discrimination then I don't know what is). The teen from rural SC who had one gay experience with his best friend is treated the exact same way as a promiscious guy from SF who's been with 1,000 partners. They're excluded with no questions asked. Meanwhile, the straight who slept with 1,000 people is in, everytime.

 

i think thats just beyond horrible...blood is blood, people need to step away from the idea that homosexuality=AIDS... and what doesnt help is when things like this happen..

 

So, I was out with a friend today and she went to go donate blood. I decided to give it a go for the first time. The process started smoothly with the iron test. I filled out the questionnaire and one thing caught my mind. If I had any sexual relations with another man I was automatically indefinitely deferred from donating blood.
I'm still a virgin at the moment so it doesn't affect me for the time being but whenever the time comes when me and some other guy get together and do the bad thing then my blood is considered unsafe due to high risk behaviour that could expose it to certain STDs. Even if I was in a stable monogamous relationship they will still not accept it. Even if they test my blood for STDs and I turn out clean they will still not accept it.

I understand the need to protect the blood recipients but this is borderline discrimination. "Statistics this!" and "statistics that!" Sure there are a higher number of cases of STDs in men who've had sexual relations with other men but it doesn't mean that heterosexual sex is free from the hazards of STDs. I don't think it is fair to whitewash all gay men as being walking hives of disease.

People in this world are dying all the time because there is a shortage of their particular blood type and they are not even given the option of accepting 'the potential risks' of being the recipient of a gay man's blood because we are rejected right from the get-go.

I just found that particular filter to be outrageous and I needed a place to vent about it.

Post your comments or opinions on this matter.

 

It's not just gay men that are prevented from giving blood, at least not in the UK. Here, I think, heterosexuals are also prevented from giving blood if they've had sex in Africa, as well as intravenous drug users. It's not discrimination in the sense of homophobia. It fits a very real demographic, that the highest concentrations of HIV are amongst heterosexuals in many Third World countries and homosexual males and IV drug users in the West. In principle, I'd be in favour of loosening the restrictions. You can, after all, screen for HIV - though only three months after infection. In practice, however, they are trying to cover all possible angles and make blood transfusions as safe as humanly possible. It's not a flawless process, and one might charge it as being discriminatory, but it may, unfortunately, be necessary....

 

also if you've had sex with a man who's had sex with a man. Ie if your boyfriend is bi, you aren't allowed to give blood. Ridiculousness... but I heard they were starting to review the laws in Canada... may've just been a rumour though

 

that's rather absurd. and prejudiced. and just stupid.

i mean, obviously gay people are all diseased and have bad blood.

 

I think it would be a mistake to see it as prejudiced. Whilst I disagree with the practice, I sincerely doubt that there is an irrational discriminatory element behind it. Rather it is rationality itself which has led to a form of discrimination. This is not an issue of sexuality, it is an issue of public health. There are, I would argue, much more pressing issues to be concerned with. Giving blood is a responsibility, not a right. Marriage and children, on the other hand, could be seen as rights. The right for homosexual couples to equality in marriage and adoption law is far more important, and a very real persisting area of discrimination that needs to be addressed. Giving blood is not an issue on the same level, nor is discrimination on this level motivated by the same homophobic factors....