I’ll submit this, just to show I didn’t pull my statement out my butt.
Then,
And while we’re on the subject of questionable places from which people demonstrate their expertise, please tell me where exactly it says I have to outline all of my expertise to justify statements I make in GQ?
I’m not sure why I even responded to your post, since you are apparently attempting to make my argument for me.
If safety (why do you use all caps, are you shouting?) is paramount, then I’d say we need to make blood screening infallible, not willy-nilly exclude certain “risk” groups just to make people feel better about where their much needed blood is coming from.
As a fierce supporter of gay rights, it’s almost a relief to me that I tend toward the little-bit-too-anemic side of things and so usually can’t donate, because this policy is really upsetting to me. If I’m ever in Australia, though, I’ll see if I can binge on liver and spinach for a day or two.
I am not shouting. I was trying to point out key words.
I agree with you that the policy sucks. That does not however negate the scientific risk analysis associated behind the decision. Personally, I would like to see a stronger, more cost effective testing procedure that would satisfy the FDA (and Health Canada here) in order to eliminate a lifetime ban. Do I think it is over cautious? Perhaps, but I do not for a moment believe that the decision is a result of politics or homophobia.
Until such time as the screening methodology is infallible (and it IS getting better, but not 100% yet) then policies to reduce the most high risk groups based on scientific methods must be maintained to ensure the safety of the blood supply. Regardless of donor or recipient background.
Yes. But remember the context in which these questions are asked. They’re not raised in a professional one-to-one counselling situation where we can ascertain that the subject understands the ramifications of the question and can explore any points he wants. They’re printed on a leaflet, and subjects - who are foten in a hurry, lunchtime isn’t that long - will spend less than a minute scanning the questions and ticking the boxes.
So you need short, punchy questions, without a minimum of subordinate clauses, qualifiers and exceptions, to which subjects can easily give a yes/no answer.
Remember, the object is to exclude donors with a higher-than-average risk factor. It is not equally important to include all donors with an average or below average risk factor; if you lose some of these as well it doesn’t matter, provided you have excluded as many as you can of those with an above-average risk factor, and the remaining pool of donors is large enough. Hence, from the point of view of assuring the blood supply, it is simply not necessary to complicate or qualify the questions in order to include the long-term monogamous HIV-negative gays; their blood may be just fine, but the community doesn’t particularly need it.
If they refuse to answer, then they’re giving good reason to avoid including them, anyway.
At the end of that night, you’ll have a very safe selection of donors.
But the kicker here is that if you put a waiting period on it, (QtM suggested 6 months is up to the usual time it may take for an infection to show), and even if you extend that to give a greater safety barrier, say… 12 or 18 months, (Hell, say even 2 years, but that’s pushing it) but these guys who had sex with a man (Even with a condom!) back in the 80’s still can’t ever donate.
Are men who take the proper precautions to practice safe sex “SCIENTIFCALLY[sic]” at a higher risk than the women who have unprotected sex with men? The same applies to the groups of women who don’t know if the men they’ve been with have ever been with a man.
So, let’s get this straight (Pun not intended.):
-Man has sex with a man in 1980. Tests negative for HIV (12/18/24/whatever months later.) He can’t donate.
-Woman has unprotected sex with a man. Hey, she can donate! Congrats!
-Woman has (even protected) sex with a man, and doesn’t care to ask whether or not he’s ever been with a man. She can’t donate.
And how is this not a judgement on the practices of homosexuals? Like has already been stated, this definetly does encourage those same kinds of disgust that were present before. (Yes, and still today.) How can people look at that question and not realize that they’re stereotyping AIDS as a gay thing?
I don’t think so. We all know that lesbians are immune to AIDS. :dubious: (No, I don’t mean to say they’re at higher risk than anyone else. That wasn’t an insult.)
Oh, don’t touch the Gay Blood!!! Homosexuality is contaaaagious. Better to just shun them.
How can you not see anything beyond opinion? As expressed above, I AGREE with the fact that the rule sucks. If someone told the Blood Agency “oh don’t worry, I only shot up heroin that one time a few years ago, but I’m pretty sure I’m clean since the test I took came bag negative”, you still wouldn’t be accepted.
The reason? not all testing methodology is the same. Did you know that the regulations for testing of blood at Canadian Blood Services (and I am sure places in the US as well) are much more stringent than normal tests done by hospitals and clinics by necessity? Ask any donor that tests false-positive for something in our tests because a very minute trigger set off one of our flags. These flags aren’t caught by normal testing methods.
However, not only are our testing methods more stringent, they are also not foolproof. Until that time, any high risk donor must, by necessity, be deferred, whether temporarily or permanently.
It sucks, but such is the way it goes.
As I said, I agree with you that the rule sucks, and at best is probably overcautious. But that does not turn it into a homophobic issue, any more than permanently deferring intravenous drug users means that I should fear everyone who drinks a cup of coffee.
So who was talking about lying to the blood services?
We have been fighting the transmission of HIV among gay men. In the mean time, HIV infection rates among other populations has been increasing. Can you imagine the outcry if, for example, black or First Nations women were barred from donating blood, even though their HIV infection rates are on the upswing?
Otto, I should have asked if “you’d condone” instead of if “you’d advocate”.
I hope you’ll forgive my reticence to have reread your actual statement since then, as in now, I find your entire attitude so disturbing. As a two time bleeder that’s been ambulanced to the hospital for infusions, thank God we (family) have friends we can trust to come through in the pinch for me.
No, you might not contribute to the problem (so you say) but you’re obviously not inclined to help do a damn thing about it.
Stay with us Otto, stay with us. They haven’t provided a single scientific fact to back themselves up. Stay with us! They are making themselves look stupid.
Otto, you tell the truth and you don’t encourage anyone else to do different and we have no problem.
People, straight or gay, think they can apply uneducated logic and rationalizations to the medical well being of others and whether it’s well intended or not we’ve got a serious problem brewing.
Levdrakon, it ain’t political buddy. Until you confront the Red Cross and others and convince them of the medical soundness of your position, shoot square with them. I can’t believe anyone has a problem with or would deviate from that.
Please stop baiting me. My position has not changed. High risk donors must be deferred. We are agreed on this. Permanent deferral sucks, and is probably over cautious in this group. We are agreed on this in spirit. However, whether permanent or temporarily deferred for a period of time, as bad as this will probably come out sounding, if you currently practice a lifestyle that lends you to what is considered high risk behavior (in so far as blood donations go), then the deferral must remain for the duration of the term, whether permanent or limited. Therefore, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, what have you, if you are living in a high risk group , the deferral must stand. Time limits or not. This is not a statement of a homophobic nature. The same applies to any and all groups that are medically deemed high risk for donation.
Tell you what; -you- go make blood screening infallible. And, while you’re granting wishes, I’d like a pony.
Meanwhile, I’ll be over here feeling better knowing that the Red Cross is doing the best it can in an imperfect world.
If you really want to help, volunteer your two hands and whatever you have in there that passes for a mind, and you’ll do more good than you would with a pint of blood. The Red Cross happily accepts volunteer labor, without regard to your sexual activity.
