Descrimination that kills

[Vorin]

I'm not sure how many of you know this, so I'll begin using myself as an example to better explain.

For a long time I've been trying to think of a way to actually do something worth while with my life. Now I'm not talking about some fancy schoolin' or some awesome job like politican where you can "help people." I more into the direct approach, and so giving blood seemed like the perfect solution. Maybe it's just those ads that get to me on T.V., "Saving the world isn't easy. Saving a life is. Donate blood."

So during this new school year I looked forward to the annual blood drive, missing last years because I didn't really know when it was until the day and I usually need some time to mentally prepare myself for needles. However, something occured to me as I walked through the halls. The FDA has a very strange rule, that the Red Cross follows, concerning the use of gay blood. Now, before I went and started posting this thread I did a little research concerning this rule (http://www.fda.gov/Cber/faq/bldfaq.htm#gm). ((Second to last link down.))

Now I don't like to kiss and tell, well, actually I do. Over the summer I had a little taste of the hedonist delights, taste being the primary word. This promted my research, as I didn't want to up to ask somebody, "Hey, do blowjobs count?" Yeah, I'd look like a slut.

Let me boil my rant down. Any man, who has had sexual contact with any other man of any kind, is never allowed to give blood, even if that sex was "safe". On the other hand, heterosexual contact *and girl on girl action oddly* could be completely without protection and have multiple partners instead of just one, and still give as much blood as they want.

People, this is just the old homophobic sterotype that AIDS is a fag disease, and I'm pretty fucking pissed at it. Any type of sex is a risk, not just gay sex. I'd like to point out their data is almost from 10 years ago, 96-97.

Thoughts on this subject?

[Roscar Palidyne]

I've given blood about 5 times my entire life, and I love doin' it, like you said Vorin it's a more direct way of having a positive impact on the world around you. Plus you get all sleepy and they give you cookies and ginger ale and V8. Hehe!

However I NEVER knew that the questions on there about homosexuality would actually bar you from being able to give blood. I guess I never really noticed it on the questionnaire they give you, because of questions like "Did you encounter hot horny monkeys while in: Zimbabwe, Antartica, Zaire, Russia." and etc. I agree with you though, that's bullshit. They shouldn't be treating homosexual and heterosexual sex any differently from each other, hell I'd think that by now every single gay guy out there would be so fed up with the AIDS stereotype they'd be safe and crystal clean just to spite the world around them. If I didn't know the people in question, I'd trust a gay guy to be clear of venereal disease before a straight one.

Makes you wonder though.....there may be more than just "medical facts" involved with that prejudice. After all, it is the "Red Cross"..........

EDIT:


Studies also show that men with a history of male to male sex since 1977 are also at increased risk of transmitting hepatitis viruses.

WHAT?! What kinda groundless fact is that?!

[Cyrus the virus]

I wonder... Would they let you give plasma?

Wierd question, I know.

[Letho]

Let me boil my rant down. Any man, who has had sexual contact with any other man of any kind, is never allowed to give blood, even if that sex was "safe". On the other hand, heterosexual contact *and girl on girl action oddly* could be completely without protection and have multiple partners instead of just one, and still give as much blood as they want.This just confirms what I've been saying all along. Lesbian sex > Gay sex. Even the Red Cross admits it. :cool:

[Damion Shargath]

This just confirms what I've been saying all along. Lesbian sex > Gay sex. Even the Red Cross admits it. :cool:

*chuckles*

Agreed.

Anyhow, on a more serious behalf I think it's a little ridiculous...but what can you do? ...not much.

[Breaker]

Lol, leave it to Letho.

That seems like a stupid rule, probably one that was made awhile ago and never changed. My best guess is that it had something to do with AIDS being called the "Gay Disease"... or maybe it has nothing to do with that. But it might.

[Futsuriai]

There was actually a big fuss over that here at McGill when Hema-Quebec drew out of the campus due to protests and incitations to lie on the sheets.

It's a pretty stupid to deny blood-giving, the gay thing, in this particular case I am a bit ambiguous on the specifics.

Also, I almost forgot. The only descrimination that kills is that against spelling discrimination correctly. :p

[Bearded Gnome]

I don't agree with that rule one bit. Something that gets to me is that, if a person gives blood....don't they have to check for disease? I don't think an idiotic questionaire is going to deter someone from giving blood. So even if a gay guy gives blood, and he just happens to have AIDs, they'd check it and notice if there was anything wrong with it, and if he has some kind of disease, then they'd throw it out. You can't blame the FDA or the Red Cross or any other organization for trying to save people from diseases, but you can blame them for doing it for the wrong reasons.

[Jasmine]

i must admit that refusing someone to give blood because they are gay is very wrong. About the only thing I can think of to still be able to give blood if one is gay, is to lie about it. While I don't normally encourage lying, in this case, I think it would be just fine. Blood is blood, sexual orientation does not change it. As it has been mentioned, it would have to be tested the same as any other blood given, therefore, "gay" blood is not any worse or better than "straight" blood. Perhaps they fear that if they take "gay" blood, and give it to a straight person, that person might becaome gay because they think that being gay is some kind of disease that can be passed on just like STDs. *shrug*

[aesculus]

What the... are gay's aliens all of a sudden? Last time I checked there shouldn't have to be a problem with what your sexual preference is if you can't to donate blood.

There are a lot of ways you can get STDs and other things that taint blood. By the way aren't they supposed to do a blood test to see if the blood is tainted? I think that's what they are supposed to do (There are psychos out there with HIV/AIDS etc. that go to blood donation places and give thier blood).

[Vorin]

HIV blood tests aren't "100%". In the FDA's eyes, they're just making sure people are safe. However, by not allowing people to give blood if they're gay and sexually active *even if they use protection*, and allowing heterosexuals to give blood no matter the types of sex, they're really not keeping anyone safe.

They're just pissing me off.

[aesculus]

Thats true. Nevertheless , that's a stupid rule. I can see why you hate it, ticks me off as well.

[Cyrus the virus]

Now that I think of it, I looked into giving blood a few months ago. I read over the outlines and whatever, and don't remember seeing anything about gay people not being allowed to give blood. It was all travel-related questions, drug-related, that sort of thing.

Maybe it's an America thing.

[Vorin]

No dear Cyrus. During my search I came across many sites from other countries. It may just be a red cross/FDA thing. More research will have to be done.

[Cyrus the virus]

Well, the place I checked is pretty nearby where I am. Maybe it's not sanctioned by the Red Cross, or maybe they have other, unwritten rules. I do remember going through them all and not seeing a homo-hating one.

[Serilliant]

I hate to be the dickish voice of truth here, but the statistics show that gays are disproportionally more affected by AIDS than straight people. Allowing gays to donate increases the risks of HIV-infected blood entering the pool (remember that the virus cannot be detected in blood immediately. Tainted blood can get through) while not increasing the number of potential donors all that significantly. It's a matter of risk management. Unfair? Maybe. But it's based on science and is designed to protect those who need blood. Their right to live trumps your right to donate.