Blood/plasma donation discrimination!!!

Mechanical · 08-26-2009, 03:32 AM

Ok, something I notice when they ask questions for blood donations, they ONLY ask if a man has had sex with a man. It doesn't apply to women! They say it is a higher increse for AIDS, but not! Men, women, gay,straight, bi, whatever... all have the chance to get it! Not just gay men!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is discrimination and annoy me!!!! Does this bother other people?

***VamPyroX*** · 08-26-2009, 03:45 AM

It has to do with anal sex.

When a man has anal sex with another man, he's having direct skin contact through it.

With women (lesbians), they could have anal sex... but that would be done with the use of strap-on. That doesn't involve direct skin contact.

That's their reasoning.

Mechanical · 08-26-2009, 03:47 AM

No, it asks, any sexual contact: oral, or anal... both make you not allowed to donate.

sampaguita · 08-27-2009, 06:05 AM

There is only one layer of skin between rectum and the bloodstream, so it does somewhat help eliminate if you have a higher risk of being exposed to HIV. Though based on the statistics in Florida, HIV is still highly present in the MSM population compared to the hetero. That they do not also ask this question to women is biased. I am actually quite upset that I did not notice this when I went to donate.

Aleser · 09-01-2009, 03:45 AM

The laws are outdated and discriminatory. Gay or bi men who practice safer sex are NOT at any increased risk of HIV. You can try to argue the whole fragile rectum idea, but, last I checked women who engage in anal sex aren't humiliate by being asked their sex practices and then being disallowed to donate.

I personally know a large handful of men who've had / have sex with men who donate blood, plasma, platelets, marrow, so on. If you know that you're HIV negative, LIE if asked about who you have sex with. The person whose life you save will not care who you get into bed with.

CJB · 09-01-2009, 10:29 AM

The demographic in the U.S. with the highest rate of being HIV positive is young black women. I'd love to see the Red Cross try to get away with barring black people from donating.

dreama · 09-01-2009, 08:19 PM

Yes, I agree. I tried to donate blood but they said I couldn't, first because I am deafblind then because I used to take drugs for epilepsy. I might try again soon and see what excuse they give this time.

CJB · 09-01-2009, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

Yes, I agree. I tried to donate blood but they said I couldn't, first because I am deafblind then because I used to take drugs for epilepsy. I might try again soon and see what excuse they give this time.

That is so infuriating! You would think they would try to be the least picky possible since they are so in demand! I guess not.

souggy · 09-01-2009, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

Yes, I agree. I tried to donate blood but they said I couldn't, first because I am deafblind then because I used to take drugs for epilepsy. I might try again soon and see what excuse they give this time.

I wouldn't know what it is like to give blood since the Red Cross did a good job of making sure I couldn't due to that prison blood scandal in the '80s.

Oi...

At least the Canadian Forces were kind enough to turn me down because of tainted blood sample, not because of my sight or hearing loss. I just had to try to see what they would say if I try to join the military.

I think I rather take the "tainted blood due to epilepsy drugs" over "sorry, we can't accept your donation because you're (non-blood related reasons)."

CJB · 09-01-2009, 09:33 PM

At least epilepsy drugs sounds like a valid medical reason. Although I wonder how often they come up with "reasons" when the real reason is because they see you as unfit because of deafness or deafblindness or whatever else.

dreama · 09-01-2009, 09:50 PM

It would if I was still taking them but I've come off them now.

CJB · 09-01-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

It would if I was still taking them but I've come off them now.

Whoops, misunderstood. That sounds like a BS reason. I just don't understand why the Red Cross begs and pleads for more donors and then when people stand in line they find the stupidest reasons to turn people down. They screen the blood for diseases anyway. It's not like the blood is going directly to the patient in need.

souggy · 09-01-2009, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJB

They screen the blood for diseases anyway. It's not like the blood is going directly to the patient in need.

They don't in third-world countries. I am serious. Look at their policy for distributing blood in Africa and Asia. All tainted blood that don't meet the guideline in Europe, developed Asian countries or U.S. go to third-world. It's right there in their mandate too...

dreama · 09-01-2009, 10:00 PM

First they objected about my deafblindness and possible communication problems. Then they objected because of my epilesy as I used to be on Tegretol but I'm off it now. Aparantly you have to wait several years in case you have problems with your epilepsy. I do but it's only petit mal epilepsy so even if I have seizure, it's no big deal.

CJB · 09-01-2009, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

They don't in third-world countries. I am serious. Look at their policy for distributing blood in Africa and Asia. All tainted blood that don't meet the guideline in Europe, developed Asian countries or U.S. go to third-world. It's right there in their mandate too...

That is so wrong.

I still stand by my point in a way though because exempting gay men and deafblind people and so on makes no sense at all. Gay men are no longer the leading demographic carrying HIV and there's no reason deafblindness should keep someone from donating.

dreama · 09-01-2009, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

They don't in third-world countries. I am serious. Look at their policy for distributing blood in Africa and Asia. All tainted blood that don't meet the guideline in Europe, developed Asian countries or U.S. go to third-world. It's right there in their mandate too...

Really? That's no good.

***VamPyroX*** · 09-01-2009, 11:40 PM

I don't remember seeing any question related to anal sex with men on those forms.

I've given blood before and I remember the question being something like "Have you had anal sex?" I don't remember anything like "Have you had anal sex with another man?"

CJB · 09-01-2009, 11:48 PM

Quote:

HIV, AIDS
You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.
You are at risk for getting infected if you:

have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia
were born in, or lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria, since 1977.
since 1977, received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of these countries, or
had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of these countries. Learn more about HIV Group O, and the specific African countries where it is found.

Donor Eligibility

***VamPyroX*** · 09-02-2009, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJB

Donor Eligibility

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.

CJB · 09-02-2009, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

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.

That's what I thought too. But I have seen gay men being turned down with my own eyes.

deafdyke · 09-03-2009, 10:17 PM

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.

***VamPyroX*** · 09-04-2009, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJB

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.

CJB · 09-04-2009, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

I have gay friends who have donated blood. I guess it happened where you were.

I imagine the guideline is more enforced in homophobic areas and not enforced in accepting ones.

Mechanical · 09-07-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

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!

CJB · 09-07-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mechanical

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.

Mechanical · 09-07-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJB

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!

CJB · 09-07-2009, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mechanical

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.

souggy · 09-07-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJB

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):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

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.

Mechanical · 09-07-2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJB

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.

CJB · 09-07-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mechanical

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.

08-26-2009, 03:32 AM	#1 (permalink)
Mechanical Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Concord, NC Posts: 106	Blood/plasma donation discrimination!!! Ok, something I notice when they ask questions for blood donations, they ONLY ask if a man has had sex with a man. It doesn't apply to women! They say it is a higher increse for AIDS, but not! Men, women, gay,straight, bi, whatever... all have the chance to get it! Not just gay men!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is discrimination and annoy me!!!! Does this bother other people?

08-26-2009, 03:45 AM	#2 (permalink)
*VamPyroX* bloody phreak from hell Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Hell Posts: 31,473	It has to do with anal sex. When a man has anal sex with another man, he's having direct skin contact through it. With women (lesbians), they could have anal sex... but that would be done with the use of strap-on. That doesn't involve direct skin contact. That's their reasoning. __________________ Check out my city... CLICK HERE! (If you already visited yesterday, visit again today!)

08-27-2009, 06:05 AM	#4 (permalink)
sampaguita Jasminum sambac Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Jacksonville, Florida Posts: 16	There is only one layer of skin between rectum and the bloodstream, so it does somewhat help eliminate if you have a higher risk of being exposed to HIV. Though based on the statistics in Florida, HIV is still highly present in the MSM population compared to the hetero. That they do not also ask this question to women is biased. I am actually quite upset that I did not notice this when I went to donate. __________________ The purpose of life is to live it, to taste experience to the utmost, to reach out eagerly and without fear for newer and richer experience. - Eleanor Roosevelt

09-01-2009, 03:45 AM	#5 (permalink)
Aleser Woosh. Yes, Woosh. Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 669	The laws are outdated and discriminatory. Gay or bi men who practice safer sex are NOT at any increased risk of HIV. You can try to argue the whole fragile rectum idea, but, last I checked women who engage in anal sex aren't humiliate by being asked their sex practices and then being disallowed to donate. I personally know a large handful of men who've had / have sex with men who donate blood, plasma, platelets, marrow, so on. If you know that you're HIV negative, LIE if asked about who you have sex with. The person whose life you save will not care who you get into bed with. __________________ "She thinks... she can make people do what she wants or needs, what is right, by the sheer force of her own talent, not by forcing them... she can teach them and persuade them... that they'll catch it from her. This is still faith in their rationality, in the omnipotence of reason. The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them."

09-01-2009, 08:19 PM	#7 (permalink)
dreama deafblind vegan Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: England Posts: 3,018	Yes, I agree. I tried to donate blood but they said I couldn't, first because I am deafblind then because I used to take drugs for epilepsy. I might try again soon and see what excuse they give this time. __________________ I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. http://www.fightfoca.com/

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

08-26-2009, 03:47 AM	#3 (permalink)
Mechanical Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Concord, NC Posts: 106	No, it asks, any sexual contact: oral, or anal... both make you not allowed to donate.

09-01-2009, 10:29 AM	#6 (permalink)
CJB deafblind writer Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: U.S. Posts: 1,409	The demographic in the U.S. with the highest rate of being HIV positive is young black women. I'd love to see the Red Cross try to get away with barring black people from donating.

09-01-2009, 09:33 PM	#10 (permalink)
CJB deafblind writer Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: U.S. Posts: 1,409	At least epilepsy drugs sounds like a valid medical reason. Although I wonder how often they come up with "reasons" when the real reason is because they see you as unfit because of deafness or deafblindness or whatever else.

09-01-2009, 09:50 PM	#11 (permalink)
dreama deafblind vegan Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: England Posts: 3,018	It would if I was still taking them but I've come off them now. __________________ I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. http://www.fightfoca.com/

09-01-2009, 10:00 PM	#14 (permalink)
dreama deafblind vegan Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: England Posts: 3,018	First they objected about my deafblindness and possible communication problems. Then they objected because of my epilesy as I used to be on Tegretol but I'm off it now. Aparantly you have to wait several years in case you have problems with your epilepsy. I do but it's only petit mal epilepsy so even if I have seizure, it's no big deal. __________________ I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. http://www.fightfoca.com/

09-01-2009, 11:40 PM	#17 (permalink)
*VamPyroX* bloody phreak from hell Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Hell Posts: 31,473	I don't remember seeing any question related to anal sex with men on those forms. I've given blood before and I remember the question being something like "Have you had anal sex?" I don't remember anything like "Have you had anal sex with another man?" __________________ Check out my city... CLICK HERE! (If you already visited yesterday, visit again today!)

09-03-2009, 10:17 PM	#21 (permalink)
deafdyke So NOT a Princess! Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Trebekistan Posts: 7,491	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.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode