I understand that view point, but can i take it to an extreme?
You say you’d never lie, what if it was race?
(assuming you’re white) What if you were in Africa and dozens of african children were dieing in your city every day, all you had to do to give your blood (and save a handful of lives) is to tick a box saying you were african, would you do it then?
Im not taking anything as a lifestyle condemnation.
Im saying Red Cross is worried about X, Y and Z, i have Dr Smith (and Dr Jones) tell me that im totally in the clear about X, Y and Z. Where’s the logical harm in leaving out info to the Red Cross?
Not “It’s wrong!” not “You’re lieing!” but where’s the logical harm in misleading them about something which you have PROOF they don’t need to worry about?
I don’t lie, but then, I decided ages ago that if the American Red Cross is so convinced that everybody from Europe has AIDS and Mad Cow Disease both, including vegetarian virgins, they can complain to somebody else.
When I was in Philly, I was asked repeatedly to donate blood. I would say “I can’t.” Most people had the wisdom to stop at that, but a couple times that I ran into morons who didn’t take that answer, showing them The List along with my Spanish passport would inevitably produce a Kodak moment.
These were my feelings for quite some time. I just loved that i found a charity where my entire donation would go to it’s cause.
I work in research, and get blood byproducts (buffy coats are separated out from the whole blood and are undesireable for transfusion, but are great for my research) about twice a week. They are released fresh, before testing. I must begin processing them without knowing if they are truly safe.
It isn’t unusual to get a donor whose blood turns up positive for something (hepatitis and HIV, generally) and I only get that phone call after I’ve already been using it. In addition to being unsafe, it’s a huge waste of my time as any experiments I’ve begun have to be trashed.
Of course, then I realize that my bad day is an even worse day for that donor who is about to get a real bad phone call. Presumably, they thought that they were safe, and it turns out they’re not.
No, because what if (I hate playing this game, by the way) something I had in my blood that would react negatively with the recipient was unidentified because I didn’t tell the truth?
The criteria was set up for a reason, and it was not to screw homosexuals. It was created to save lives. To look at it the other way is to be disturbingly selfish and show a terrible lack of self-esteem, as if you need to donate blood to feel good about yourself.
As it stands now, perhaps they need to re-evaluate the criteria. Maybe they will. But until they do, all you do by lying is place recipients at unnecessary risk for the purpose of feeding your own ego.
I do not lie. I have not gone a year without a tattoo for the past two decades. My physician does a routine hematology/serology including a hepatitis panel each year because he is uber cautious. If my blood is not up to their standards, screw 'em.
Punintentional writes:
> But they always go on about low blood supplies . . .
Do you have any proof that the blood supply in the U.S. is so low that people who need it are denied it? I don’t see any such thing. What exists is, at most, occasional spot shortages where they need to rush in blood from elsewhere. If the blood supply were so low that people were being denied blood donations because there was not enough to go around, the people in charge of regulating the requirements for blood donations would loosen those requirements so that more people could donate blood.
The people who make these requirements aren’t stupid. Do you have a medical degree or a degree in public health? Have you looked at the calculations that were done in deciding what restrictions to put on blood donation? Each time that a new requirement is established or an old one is eliminated, they do a calculation on how likely the group restricted is likely to have any of a number of diseases, how likely they are to pass on those diseases in their blood, and how badly those diseases would affect the people who receive their blood. They make the restrictions just barely tight enough to ensure the blood for donations is as clean as possible while allowing just barely enough blood for all donations.
If you think their calculations are wrong, start a political campaign to make them publicly explain their calculations so that everyone can find out if they are making bad choices in their restrictions. Don’t lie when you donate blood, because you’re not qualified to know by yourself what the best choice of restrictions are. What you would be doing is far worse than people who decide to ignore a doctor’s orders because they think they know more about medicine than the doctor. Those people are only endangering themselves. A person who lies before donating blood is endangering other people.
I wonder why the requirement isn’t just a clean AIDS test (or clean test for any other disqualifying disease). That way, it has nothing to do with the donor’s lifestyle and everything to do with whether the blood is suitable or not. Of course, I figure that this would bring down donations, but safety should be more important, anyway. I realize that privacy freaks will think this is blasphemous, but I think it’s a far worse violation to be given tainted blood.
I didnt say anything about screwing homosexuals.
Consider this situation (i.e Real life)
-The Red Cross themself say they are worried about A, B and C (HIV, Hepatitis, other)
-I know for a fact from multiple medical professionals that i have none of those.
-All it takes for me to donate blood to others is to mislead the Red Cross.
Do you follow?
What im asking is, in that situation (i.e, my real life situation), would you like for the greater good? and why/why not?
What? Cite and explanation please? How are condoms only 85% effective in preventing HIV?
MeanJoe
If this question will cause to big of a hijack, I can start a separate GQ thread.
Do you have any proof i said “blood supply in the US is so low that people who need it are denied it”?
I said “they always go on about low blood supplies”.
Firstly i never mentioned anyone being denied ANYTHING.
All i know is getting constant emails from the Red Cross (in Australia by the way), asking for blood and saying they need x amount of donations a week but are getting <X amounts of donations.
I guess in the end it’s all about getting as much good blood as cheaply as possible.
So the bottom line is that men who have sex with men have a DOCUMENTED INCREASED RISK of having HIV or HCV and unfortunately screening methods are not yet perfect. So as a group they are excluded from donating blood. Is this fair? Of course not. But the Red Cross is trying to PREVENT contamination of the blood supply and they must use drastic measures. Haitians are also banned from donating blood. That certainly doesn’t mean that everyone from Haiti is HIV or HCV positive, but they are screened out as an extreme precaution. Remember that the goal is to keep the blood supply safe, and unfortunately at this time, excluding high risk groups is a necessary practice.
As I understand it these tests are 2 stage, ie you give blood now and then again in a specified period of time, and you would get the results some time after the second sample tested clear. However if you regularly partake in risky activity, your guarantess that you are not a carrier aren’t worth so much.
I don’t qualify because of the time-spent-in-Europe rule (interestingly enough, the blood banks here in Europe have no such rule. Do they know something the American Red Cross doesn’t?). Seeing as I’ve been a vegetarian since before I ever set foot outside North America, I think the chance I’ve acquired mad cow disease on my travels is pretty slim. So if I wanted to donate blood in the US, I probably wouldn’t feel too guilty about lying.
As it happens, though, I’m a scaredy-cat and couldn’t really bring myself to donate anyway 
Firstly, in Australia you give the test sample, as well as the actual blood sample at the same time.
I can see im not going to get through to some people, but in the situation where you are involved in no “risky” activity from when you are first tested by two doctors (and then given the all clear) to the time you give blood… Would you then lie?
'cause if you do that, you can’t donate blood!
To answer the OP: No, I wouldn’t lie, and don’t you either. The system is cumbersome, and the current rules may go further than they need to, but they’re not based on hysteria or prejudice. I’m not allowed to give blood because I had Hep C; it’s frustrating, but I accept it.
In the 1980s, virtually every hemophiliac in the U.S. got HIV, because they used blood products made from the mixed blood of numerous donors. As noted, not only HIV but several viruses have “windows” during which they’re present in blood, but haven’t reproduced enough to show up on a test.
Sorry I got your country wrong, Punintentional. You should start threads with a statement of where you are. In other words, you don’t have any official statements that there are blood shortages. All you have are E-mails from the Red Cross asking you for donations saying that they need more of them. These are like the fundraising letters I get from charities that say that they desperately need my money, despite the fact that they are actually doing pretty well. Do you have any official statements from health authorities in Australia that there is a desperate need for more blood donations and that this need is caused by the overly tight restrictions on donations? If there was such a desperate need, you’d expect there to be news stories about it and how it’s causing people to die because they don’t get the blood donations they need. Does anyone have any official statistics about the availability of blood donations in Australia, the U.S., or anywhere else? Is there anywhere that there is a desperate need for blood donations, and is this need caused by the restrictions?