When I had my back surgery, I had a really hard time with the Red Cross. They are THE only place around here to give blood, and I needed to donate a large quantity to myself for my procedure. To make a long story short, I was so damned mad at them for how I was treated, I didn’t give blood for 2 years after my surgery.
Then I had a friend who hemmoraged vaginally from an illness and needed 4 pints of blood transfused. It got me thinking that the only people I was hurting by boycotting them were sick persons who needed my blood. I decided to start giving again, and I haven’t stopped yet.
No, their practices aren’t the best, and their standards are pretty strict. I don’t know the medical reasons for some of their non-accepting of blood, but I assume they’re for safety reasons- not to be bigots. If there were another way for me to donate, I would do it, but they’re the only game in town right now and I don’t plan on letting thier asshole policies affect my want to give. Not giving at the Red Cross (if you meet their criteria and there is nowhere else to give) only hurt people who desparately need blood, not the Red Cross.
It’s because if your blood was donated, there’s a chance that either the person could get lupus, or that they’d be more likely to get an infection. Lupus is like AIDS in that regard.
You can argue whether or not the American Red Cross discriminates against gays (until it can be proven that the ARC denies blood to homosexuals and it is shown that they discriminate in their hiring practices and acceptance of volunteers, I ain’t buying the argument) but in the end it all comes down to the statement above.
I looked up some reliable info on this subject for you all to consider (it was about fucking time someone did). Cecil discussed it but was using admittedly outdated statistics, so I disregarded his info (sorry, but his stats were from 1980).
Mods - please note that the info I quoted is only a small portion of the entire text, and none of it was specifically copyrighted, AFAICS. Only the tables at CDC were, and so I provided a link to them.
My opinion on the matter is that gay men, MSM, women having risky intercourse, and all other groups that are at all at risk of contracting HIV should have the five-year deferment.
It is a waste of blood and discriminatory to permanently defer MSM.
A man having sex with a black prostitute from DC (according to data) is as at risk for contracting HIV as MSM. If both wait five years, the chances of them actually having HIV that has been undiagnosed is slim.
If women count for 32% of AIDS cases in Kings County, WA, shouldn’t they be prevented from donating? It’s not 50/50, but 30/70 are still high odds, IMHO.
Yes, more gay men have AIDS that any other group. This is because they were the high risk group 15 years ago, when AIDS was beginning to gain publicity, before information as basic as “condoms prevent AIDS” was available, before an HIV screening test was even available. But much has changed in 15 years, and there is no logical reason to prevent MSM from donating after a 5 year deferment.
We have similar restrictions on blood donations here in Australia (and just added people who have visited Britain since 1986 due to the nvCJD scare) but we have only one organisation which collects blood.
Whether here or in the US, I feel it’s time a controlled trial was done. Perhaps for a period of 6 months our blood bank could accept donations from people who have a past history of high-risk behaviour or who fall into one of the “unacceptable donor” categories on the understanding that the blood collected during this time would be tested and destroyed. Such a policy would provide statistical evidence of whether relaxing the donation policies would represent any increased risk of contaminating the blood supply.
I also believe that a more pertinent question than whether someone has engaged in high-risk activity since 1977 is whether that person has returned negative HIV and Hepatitis tests since they last engaged in high-risk activity. Yes, people might lie about when they last put themselves at risk, but that possibility already exists with every single accepted donor. Does anyone seriously believe that the currently excluded groups are for some reason more likely to lie than accepted groups? Again, a trial period of accepting donations should soon reveal if this is the case.
I’m all for maintaining the integrity of the blood supply, but I think it’s time to move on from guidelines which were developed 15-plus years ago and develop policies which acknowledge both the huge advances which have been made in respect of detecting transmissable diseases and the extensive impact that 15 years of safe sex education has had on the behaviours practised by people.
You do understand that men AND woman who have used drugs intravenously, had sex with someone who has used drugs intravenously, had sex for money, had sex with a man who has had sex with another man, traveled to certain areas outside the U.S., are pregnant (obviously women only), been tattooed within the last 12 months, had peircings other than in a doctors office or from a qualified person using sterilized instruments, had surgery within the last 12 months, have certain blood diseases, weighs less than the minimal weight, has a low iron count, has been exposed to hepatitis, has a history of heart disease, has had cancer, on hemodialysis, or a number of other reasons, may also be prevented or deferred from donating?
It’s not like we are talking about a singular group of people being “discriminated” against. The American Red Cross’ only intent (I agree that it is outdated and should be revised) is to keep the blood supply safe. If there were true discrimination straight patients would take priority over gay and you would see it in their hiring and volunteer acceptance practices, you would also see it in the many other services they provide, particularly disaster relief. As stated before, the only people hurt from the “protests” are the patients who need your blood and the blood of those who otherwise would have donated had they not been pursued by your argument.
If you feel there is some discrimination going on with the American Red Cross, write letters or make phone calls, donate to other agencies, hell, even picket in front of their buildings, but to deny life saving blood when, in some areas, there are no other options but the American Red Cross is simply misguided.
Again, if you or someone you love were in a life-threatening situation and the only blood supply available at the time is from the American Red Cross blood banks, are you going to refuse treatment?
It seems to me that being denied the possibility, ever, of donating blood simply because you are gay is discrimination.
People with tatoos are not permanently deferred. Neither are people with piercings. In fact, as you mentioned, if you had a piercing done by a professional with sterilized equipment, you can donate. Why isn’t there a provision that if you are a MSM but in a long-term monogamous relationship and both of you have tested HIV-free, you can donate?
Also, the supgroups you mentioned above that are deferred from donating are just that - deferred. They will be able to donate again in the future.
But saying that, across the board, no homosexuals or MSM will ever be allowed to donate, simply because they are homosexuals or MSM, is narrowminded and discriminatory. We have laws against this sort of blanket bigotry.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t donate is protest. I agree with everything said by Rasa and Nymysys - find another place to donate, etc.
But considering that other groups with AIDS and HIV - most notably, black and Hispanic women - are having similarly high numbers, then it is outlandish to simply permanently defer gay men when they are no longer the only target, and when the number of MSM with AIDS is clearly decreasing every year.
I tried to donate yesterday, and have been deferred pending a doctor’s statement about some medication that I take for my knee. Apparently, active inflammation is grounds for (atleast temporary) deferment. I know from experience that my doctor will not fill out any kind of paperwork unless it’s in my presence. (This keeps him from getting me confused with other patients.) I see no reason to make an appointment for this when I can still be deferred as being unsuitable.
I understand their reasoning; however, I’m not really that happy about providing copies of medical records PLUS spending MY time, money, and my doctor’s time when the donor center people can still say “too bad; you’re still not a suitable donor.”
Again, even if they have never had any contact with a gay man, women who have taken money or drugs for sex or have used drug intravenously are not able to donate. If there is a perceived discrimination, it isn’t gay men exclusively.
What are your suggestions for those who live in areas where there are no other options except the American Red Cross? What about hospitals that utilize the services of and referred potential donors to the American Red Cross?
I’ll ask again. Would those who protest by refusing to donate to the American Red Cross refuse their services if they or a member of their family needed an emergency blood transfusion? What about their services during a disaster? Would you accept blood, shelter, food, medical treatment, transportation, financial aid, and even burial services or is your protest limited to your refusal to supply blood to patients in need?
Do you think race, religion, or sexual orientation is even a consideration when providing these services?
Robin - I understand your frustration, but there are reasons the American Red Cross wants to insure your blood is safe. I’m not willing to risk one of my kids to find out it wasn’t, are you?
Checking back in late, I have to say that I think Zette has best set out my position. Just to reiterate:
The reason I think it’s irresponsible to shout “Boycott
The Red Cross By Refusing To Give Blood!” is that it ignores the fact that, in many locations, the Red Cross is it as far as blood donations are concerned. Like Zette, I have no alternative if I want to give blood. No, I can’t go somewhere else; there is no “somewhere else.” No, I can’t donate at the hospital; they don’t take donations and tell you to go to the Red Cross (I just called to check). (The only exception is if you are banking blood for your own surgical procedure, or for a procedure of a particular individual, like a family member or person who has the same very unique blood type you do. General donations are not accepted.) In my town, telling people not to give blood at the Red Cross has the EXACT SAME EFFECT as telling people not to give blood AT ALL. Because if you tell them not to give blood there, they won’t be giving blood. Period.
The idea that by refusing to sanction such an overly-broad, obviously counter-productive boycott I am somehow in favor of discrimination against homosexuals, is ridiculous. But then, the person making that allegation is the same person who compared the Red Cross to the Taliban, so a huge grain of salt is obviously indicated.
I can’t believe I’m actually going to disagree with Jodi on something…
Actually, I don’t think it’s a disagreement but a refinement. I fully agree that if the choice is between donating to Red Cross and not donating at all, you should donate to Red Cross, rather than withholding blood from those who need it. But other posters have convinced me that it’s worth looking for and donating at another place if one is available. And I’d like to thank them for turning my attention to the issue, which I had never thought about before.
ENUGENT, you’re not disagreeing with me so neener neener neener.
As I said, the problem with urging a wholesale boycott of the Red Cross is that doing so ignores the fact that, in many locations (including mine), there is no other option available, and so “no blood donations to the Red Cross” means “no blood donations.”
If people have the option to make those crucial donations to other organizations, so that the protest can be made AND blood supplies maintained, more power to them. But I continue to think it is irresponsible to urge a blanket boycott that fails to recognize that not everybody has that option.
I personally have not posted because I am done with this thread. I have the opportunity to donate other to the Red Cross and I choose to do so. I personally say “Fuck you” to them. My intentions (again, I’m speaking for no one else but me) were not to stop people from donating blood, but to be picky about who they donate it to if given the chance. To see that at least one person (thank you ENugent) has taken the time to read this thread and consider the possibilities is gratifying to me.
I know it’s the Pit, but my time here was spent in hopes of informing, not to throw rotten tomatoes. Okay, and maybe to vent a wee bit, too.
I DO, however, think this is a shitty, low-down comparison. Comparing gay men to prostitutes is pretty cheap. Most of the gay men I know (and prostitutes, for that matter) have NEVER had sex without a condom. I forgot we’re only allowed to trust the word of straight-edge hets, though. They NEVER lie on those applications.
You took the words right out of my mouth, Nymysys.
Also, no one answered my question:
Why isn’t there a provision that if you are a MSM but in a long-term monogamous relationship and both of you have tested HIV-free, you can donate?
Equating gay men with hookers is about as fucked up as possible. A prostitute has sex for money, on a regular basis. And I’m assuming that these are not men in the best of shape. I don’t want to make any assumptions, but I don’t think prostitutes would, under any chnaces, be the cleanest of people, bloodwise or STD wise. More sex with more men = higher chance of STDs and AIDS.
Gay does NOT equal more sex with with more men. This is stereotypical and offensive, and I am not even a gay man.
If there is no blood center other than Red Cross, than donate there, or don’t donate. It’s a personal choice. I will continue to donate at a local hospital with no affiliation with the Red Cross.
IMHO, a simple five year deferrment would end this problem. There is a very slim chance (Cecil said 1 in 50 thousand, I believe, but I’m not looking up another damn link) of contracting HIV if you use a condom and are monogamous. This chance exists equally for straights and gays.
Hmmmmmmmmmm, did you read the entire thing or did you just pick and chose a statement that further ruffles your panties? Using your argument, I assume you feel that the American Red Cross equates intravenous drug use with those who have traveled to certain countries or pregnant women to those with blood conditions.
To answer your question, I don’t know. I suggest you contact the American Red Cross for your answer.
I believe that the American Red Cross should revise their screening process. I have not once argued against allowing monogamous homosexuals who have tested negative for HIV from donating. If you would go back and read this thread carefully, you will see that the argument is against those who not only “protest” by withholding life saving blood from patients who need it, but also attempting to persuade those who otherwise would have donated.
I also resent the implication that those who do not have any other choice but the American Red Cross, are somehow supporting perceived discrimination. FOR SOME, THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICE!
IF YOU WANT TO PROTEST, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS - WRITE LETTERS, MAKE PHONE CALLS, PROTEST DEMONSTRATIONS, ETC. DENYING BLOOD TO AN ALREADY SHORT BLOOD SUPPLY ONLY HURTS PATIENTS. USING YOUR WORDS, I THINK IT IS AS FUCKED UP AS POSSIBLE.
Now that I answered your question, answer mine.
**Would those who protest by refusing to donate to the American Red Cross refuse their services if they or a member of their family needed an emergency blood transfusion? What about their services during a disaster? Would you accept blood, shelter, food, medical treatment, transportation, financial aid, and even burial services or is your protest limited to your refusal to supply blood to patients in need?
Do you think race, religion, or sexual orientation is even a consideration when providing these services? If so, please cite.
Can I ask just a quick question while perusing this thread? Would the Red Cross refuse to accept blood when the only donor that can save a person’s life was a gay man who had sex last in 1986 (safely that is) and had an HIV test every year that came out negatively?
