There were times that I wished that they would find something wrong with my blood. In Ireland I twice had an ambulance arrive at my door and take me to hospital to give blood for an emergency inutero transfusion to a possible Rhesus Baby.
(Im O neg with special factors).
I wasnt exactly frogmarched or anything but its kind of hard to refuse.
I wonder what would happen if I awnsered the door and said “sure” and then kissed the nearest naked male goodbye mmmm?
Has anyone read that men can carry HIV longer without contracting AIDS than women? I thought I had read that a long time ago (so it may have been disproven since then). Would that be a reason for the difference in accepting blood from a woman who has had sex with a gay man and not accepting it from a man who had had sex with a gay man?
I tried to donate a couple of weeks ago, and was turned down because my iron was too low. That hasn’t happened in a long time. Our friend Ros was turned down because his family visited England for six weeks.
The nurse who checked my blood told me that her blood was unacceptable because she had chemotherapy in 1977. oldscratch, did you have any medication for treatment of your cancer that might have disqualified you, or was it for sure because of being gay? (How did everything turn out with your cancer? I read that you had surgery? How long will you need to be checked in case of recurrence?)
I’m banned from giving blood in the US for the same reason, and I thought it was really stupid at first, particularly given the fact that I’ve never eaten meat in Britain since I became a vegetarian six years before I ever set foot in the country.
However there’s a lot about nvCJD transmission that still isn’t known (I think this includes how to identify it in the blood) so I suppose better safe than sorry.
Interesting point.
When I was in clerk school just after finishing Army basic training, there was a car accident on post. All four family members were A-neg, and I guess they needed alot of blood. All of us that had A-neg were given the option of giving blood (and thereby earning a 3-day pass). Most of us went and tapped off a pint.
Remember, though, we had all just completed basic training, and we had been given so many shots that I lost count.
Makes you wonder if the recipients had any adverse reactions to the typhoid/yellow fever/parrot fever/plague/whatever antibodies that were swimming around in our blood.
Rather than hijack this thread, I’ll start a new one with that question.
Before, I defended Jehovah’s Witnesses’ general policy of abstension from blood. Now I’ll make some other points to this thread, as it is about whether there should be a questionnaire/group basis of rejecting blood. I believe that rejection of blood by the blood taker should be on a blood-test basis, not on such a questionaire/group basis, lest it undermines the goodwill associated with giving blood. The agency receiving and dispensing blood and blood derivatives (un)intentionally uses this power to discriminate against groups, sometimes with no rational basis, such as the prohibition vs Haitians a few years back. Since giving blood is regarded by many to be a civic duty, rejection of one blood on the basis of being a certain ethnic or minority group, regardless of whether or not the blood of the individual would-be donor is free of toxins and disease, may have the affect of making some in this group feel like second-class citizens, or “untouchables”. This then becomes a factor on this rejected group’s general unwillingness to seek medical attention when they need it.
I can’t take blood for religious reasons, but the idea of it would scare me anyway. So many things can go wrong if it’s mistyped or something. They made a mess out of my cousin when she had a baby and almost killed it bacause the Rh testing was done too early and was wrong.
Before my two asides, allow me to respond to the OP and the main point: This is ridiculous. Surely our technologies are such that the blood can be carefully screened, regardless of who it’s taken from. :::sniff sniff::: Yep, this reeks of discrimination.
Aside #1: Not that this has any real bearing on the validity of the discrimination, but the topic was brought up…A recent Discovery Channel program studied the sexual habits of men and women, both straight and homosexual. It was curious; regardless of orientation, each gender remained true to the typical sexual behaviors of that sex. Lesbians are more typically picky, less promiscuous, and more likely to be in a long-term relationship. Gay men, however, are more typically open to one night stands, and more open to sex anytime, anywhere, with anyone. Certainly there are one-night-stand-liking lesbians, and gay men who are one-man-men, but the study showed there are certain behaviors more common in one than the other. The same holds true with heterosexuals: men are more likely to be very open to sex anytime, anywhere, with anyone, and women are more likely to be interested in Relationship. (A funny experiment they did: numerous attractive women approached various men in a bar and said something to this effect: “I’ve been watching you tonight, and I find you attractive. Would you like to have sex?” Something like 60-75% said YES. Switch the experiment–men approaching women in the same fashion–and not only did less than 10% say yes, several of the subject men got slapped!)
Aside #2 I can’t donate blood, not due to disease, but low blood pressure. I’ve always been on the low end of the scale, just on this side of safe, but when I donated for my dad’s surgery, it was a big mess. I remember reading a magazine near the end of the donating period, a nurse apparently alarmed by my color asking me if I was alright, and that when I looked up from the magazine, everything went white and sparkly. Vomitting, blacking out, etc. is what followed for the next hour or so, and for at least a half hour, my blood pressure dipped so low they couldn’t get a reading. I was needing to use the restroom, and they wouldn’t let me until they had some sort of blood pressure reading–I would’ve blacked out again had I stood up. Over and over again, the head nurse said, “I strongly recommend you do not donate blood again.” Dammit. Stupid body.
Those asides aside, this archaic law needs modernization. Sheesh.
Queer McGill had a little info table outside the Red Cross blood drive last year. It certainly wasn’t to stop anyone giving blood, but rather to give information about the unscientific discrimination that gay males face at the blood banks.
What’s really surreal is that they already said they want my bone marrow. But they don’t want my blood! How stupid is that?
The other interesting thing is that I asked the nurse to please define “sex”.
Her initial response was, “blush well, sex is sex.”
I said, “Well, some behaviours are at higher risk than others.”
She said, “Well, then the ones that would transmit HIV.”
I said, “OK. So if I had never engaged in any high-risk sexual behaviours with a man since 1977 [which is true, BTW], I could check ‘no’?”
She said: “Well, use your own judgment.”
…Ok.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Milossarian *
Yeah it is a silly idea. Especially since lesbians have the lowest AIDS risk of any group. However, as far as I know lesbians can donate. I answer all the questions truthfully and have been allowed to donate each time.
Personally, I think gay men, Haitians, etc should be allowed to donate. Though, I admit I’m nervous about those who have lived in England donating. We know how to test for AIDS/HIV, but it’s too soon to conclusively test for “mad cow” disease. Like it was said before, better safe than sorry.
Though the best overall solution is just to get those who are eligible to donate. The statistic I keep hearing is “only 5% of eligible donors donate”.
Hmm… I think I’ll use that vaccination-for-typhoid excuse next time someone asks me to give blood.
I was claiming my last sexual partner was a (reformed) junkie and prostitute, but that was stretching the truth to say the least.
not an organ donor
I’m gay, and male. And I don’t think gay men should be allowed to give blood unless and until a close-to-100 percent screening technique can be in place. I have no problem with this policy. I don’t think anyone from a high-risk group should be allowed to give blood, when it comes to fatal diseases. This is not a civil rights issue, it’s a health issue.
I’ve had some terrible blood drive workers. The first time I ever gave blood, the woman poked the needle completely through the vein, leaving me with a 8" bruise that hurt like hell.
Don’t worry, Jabe. I’m in favor of civil unions. Heck, I’m in one. The intolerance that was displayed during the public forums and is still found in the letter columns in both the Burlington Free Press and the Times Argus just makes me … sad. These people aren’t rational. There’s nothing you can say to them to change their mind. I have found trememdous support in the Montpelier area, where I live. Go just over to Barre, or Williamstown, though… What really gets me is the businesses that have the ‘Take Back Vermont’ signs in them. I never felt like I was discriminated against because 8 years ago I dared to fall in love…until recently.
It would be much fairer to just ask the question that they think that they are getting the answer to when they ask that question. Like, ‘Have you had more than X sexual partners?’
It is stupid and discriminatory. I have often thought this as I answered the dumb questionaire before giving blood. Lately it seems that the forms are changing nearly every time. Maybe a sucessful proposal to the Red Cross could change the question.
K.
I remember the one time I tried to give blood in high school. I am deathly afraid of needles. When the girl went to prick my finger for a test, she noticed I was breathing kind of heavy and very pale. She wouldn’t let me then because she was afraid I would faint.
I was soooo embarassed!
Why was I giving in the first place? Our school made us feel very guilty if we didn’t!
Actually, as a former phlebotomist(blood worker), that is crap. The screening tests are close to 100%. The screening tests are more than just an HIV test. Beyond the blood being tested for multiple forms of Hepatitis, the donor is tested initially for drug use with a screen that checks for morphine derivatives as well as cocaine products. More over, every time someone comes in to donate, they get a hematocrit taken which checks the protein levels in their blood as well as iron. This shows if the donor is dehydrated and is a good indicator if the donor is an alcoholic. Also, blood pressure and temperature are taken. If these are not all in acceptable parameters, the donor is not allowed to donate. This process does keep out more potential risk than you think.
The refusal to take gay blood isn’t a health issue, it is a civil rights issue. I worked with blood donation for two years. It is hypocritical crap.
OK, question. The HIV test tests for antibodies to HIV, right? But we know that antibodies sometimes don’t show up until 6 months after infection. So even an HIV- test result doesn’t mean the blood is safe.
Do blood banks test for antibodies, or through another method?
But can you be infected thru blood that has no sign of the virus?