PDA

View Full Version : Gay pride blood drives



garhkal
07-11-2014, 07:15 PM
Saw this on Fox. Apparently there is a big push to host gay pride blood drives, and to repeal the "Sexist" law that prohibits men who have sex with other men from donating blood.

But i notice in all the years this law has been around, NO one called it sexist, cause it only targeted men?

http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/59657524

http://www.fox21news.com/news/story.aspx?id=1068358#.U8A3ELGk0i0

http://www.gayblooddrive.com/#!

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=features&sc3=&id=161808

Also, there are many OTHER reasons that preclude someone from giving blood.
A time restraint (if you gave a few days ago you can't give again. So why not repeal this as it is discriminating against those who want to continually give.
Restraints against those who were overseas at certain locations during certain times (like the EU during the mad cow crisis) - what about this? Why not repeal that?

If this law does get repealed, and somehow a Gay person who donated tainted blood gets given to someone else, Who get's sued? The gay person for being allowed to donate it? THe blood bank for improper testing? BOTH?

sandsjames
07-11-2014, 07:47 PM
Saw this on Fox. Apparently there is a big push to host gay pride blood drives, and to repeal the "Sexist" law that prohibits men who have sex with other men from donating blood.

But i notice in all the years this law has been around, NO one called it sexist, cause it only targeted men?

http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/59657524

http://www.fox21news.com/news/story.aspx?id=1068358#.U8A3ELGk0i0

http://www.gayblooddrive.com/#!

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=features&sc3=&id=161808

Also, there are many OTHER reasons that preclude someone from giving blood.
A time restraint (if you gave a few days ago you can't give again. So why not repeal this as it is discriminating against those who want to continually give.
Restraints against those who were overseas at certain locations during certain times (like the EU during the mad cow crisis) - what about this? Why not repeal that?

If this law does get repealed, and somehow a Gay person who donated tainted blood gets given to someone else, Who get's sued? The gay person for being allowed to donate it? THe blood bank for improper testing? BOTH?

Here's my question. Don't they test all blood that is given at blood drives? Why, then, would it matter who you had sex with or where you lived, etc? As long as the blood is clean, does it really matter?

Measure Man
07-11-2014, 10:06 PM
One of those deals...is it right to make this policy over all gay men? Like a lot of discriminatory practices, you can make a statistical argument about it. Does that make it right?

If, HIV prevalence were much higher in gay black males than other gay males...would it be okay to only ban the gay black males?

What if a gay black male individual practices safe sex in a monogamous relationship? Does he get banned merely for his demographics, even though he personally is not a high risk?

I think that's the crux of the argument...

TJMAC77SP
07-11-2014, 11:06 PM
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on this but I happened to see this article today.

"WHO Says All Men Who Have Sex With Men Should Take Antiretroviral Drugs"

http://time.com/2975573/who-hiv-aids-gay-men-homosexual-epidemic-rise/

Stalwart
07-12-2014, 01:58 AM
One of those deals...is it right to make this policy over all gay men? Like a lot of discriminatory practices, you can make a statistical argument about it. Does that make it right?

Does it make it right? Probably not. Does it / did it make it statistically safer? Probably when testing was not as accurate or reliable.


If, HIV prevalence were much higher in gay black males than other gay males...would it be okay to only ban the gay black males?

Kind of like asking why TSA is searching a 12 year old kid at the airport, but they cannot target young to middle aged males of Middle Eastern decent?


What if a gay black male individual practices safe sex in a monogamous relationship? Does he get banned merely for his demographics, even though he personally is not a high risk?


That is probably the case.


I don't know but would suspect that these laws date to when testing was not as accurate or reliable and every best effort was being made to minimize HIV exposure into the blood supply.

garhkal
07-12-2014, 02:56 AM
One of those deals...is it right to make this policy over all gay men? Like a lot of discriminatory practices, you can make a statistical argument about it. Does that make it right?

If, HIV prevalence were much higher in gay black males than other gay males...would it be okay to only ban the gay black males?

What if a gay black male individual practices safe sex in a monogamous relationship? Does he get banned merely for his demographics, even though he personally is not a high risk?

I think that's the crux of the argument...

As was mentioned elsewhere, we already prevent people from donating for a HOST of reasons. Is being in one of those groups discriminatory, such as being from (or visiting) X locale?
Also, giving blood is not a right.

sandsjames
07-12-2014, 11:19 AM
One of those deals...is it right to make this policy over all gay men? Like a lot of discriminatory practices, you can make a statistical argument about it. Does that make it right?

If, HIV prevalence were much higher in gay black males than other gay males...would it be okay to only ban the gay black males?

What if a gay black male individual practices safe sex in a monogamous relationship? Does he get banned merely for his demographics, even though he personally is not a high risk?

I think that's the crux of the argument...

So I guess it could go back to our recent discussion about Political Correctness. Is this a case of PC being more important than safety?

Chris_1991-2011
07-13-2014, 09:30 AM
Saw this on Fox. Apparently there is a big push to host gay pride blood drives, and to repeal the "Sexist" law that prohibits men who have sex with other men from donating blood.

But i notice in all the years this law has been around, NO one called it sexist, cause it only targeted men?

Also, there are many OTHER reasons that preclude someone from giving blood.
A time restraint (if you gave a few days ago you can't give again. So why not repeal this as it is discriminating against those who want to continually give.
Restraints against those who were overseas at certain locations during certain times (like the EU during the mad cow crisis) - what about this? Why not repeal that?

If this law does get repealed, and somehow a Gay person who donated tainted blood gets given to someone else, Who get's sued? The gay person for being allowed to donate it? THe blood bank for improper testing? BOTH?

I read the linked articles and saw nothing that indicated there is a “big push to host gay blood drives.” There were blood drives held in 61 cities on Friday July 11 in an effort to draw attention to and protest the banning of gay and bisexual men from giving/donating blood. (Unless I missed something.)

I searched all four articles that were linked in the original post (OP), and could not find the word sexist. (Maybe I missed it.) Do you have a source or is it your opinion?

The law/ban is sexist as it’s prejudicial against one sex. It’s based on the stereotype that only men who have sex with other men will get HIV/AIDS. But it fit with the lack of knowledge about HIV/AIDS, how it’s contracted/spread, and not being able to treat the men who contracted it in the early ‘80s. Therefore I don’t think people would have called it sexist/discriminatory since there was no alternative; they didn’t have the technology to remove/identify-tainted blood or treat people infected with HIV/AIDS.

HIV/AIDS does not discriminate. It does not matter what a person’s gender or race is, their sexual orientation, sexual activities they engage in, or social class. Bisexual men can pass it to their girlfriends/wives; “heterosexual” men/women who are “experimenting” can pass it to their significant other/spouse/partner, people who are transgender and/or people who swing add to the potential of contracting HIV/AIDS, IV drug users (past/present), etc. It’s been a LONG time since I’ve donated blood, so I’m unfamiliar with the process. I assume someone that wants to donate has to fill out a questionnaire or something similar regarding their health, lifestyle (sexual), or where they’ve traveled. So what’s to stop someone from lying? Given all of that, should everyone that wants to donate be forced to take a polygraph? Does it still make sense to have a ban that was put in place back in 1983 at the beginning of the HIV/AIDS crisis? We have technology/screening methods that didn’t exist back in 1983 that can remove unusable blood from donated supplies before they reach hospitals and their patients. (Source of info in last two sentences is the fourth link in the OP: http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=features&sc3=&id=161808 )

Having said all of that, I know very little about HIV/AIDS, donating blood, or diseases that can preclude you from giving blood. Something that doesn’t make sense to me is that if we have the technology/screening methods to remove unusable blood from donated supplies, what does it matter if I’ve traveled to certain parts of the globe? Can’t they detect mad cow and other diseases?

Referencing the OP’s post, having to wait a certain amount of time between donations is to allow your body time to replenish the blood/cells. Given what I posted above regarding technology/screening procedures that can remove unusable blood, if a person, gay OR straight, that has HIV/AIDS and donates blood, I doubt the blood would make it to the hospital/person in need of blood. You never know though, so I would assume the blood bank could be liable/sued, the lab(s) that tested the blood (assuming the blood bank doesn’t do it) could be liable/sued, and the person that donated the blood if they can prove they knew they had it at the time of donation could be liable/sued. I'm guessing though. On cop/police reality shows I've heard of prostitutes that had HIV/AIDS, knew about it, and still continued to work, were charged with a crime for doing so (separate from the behavior/activity for which the cops originally made contact with them.)

You guys may be surprised at the number of things that can prevent you from being able to donate blood. Go here http://www.bloodsource.org/Donate/BloodFactsFAQs.aspx and click on “are there special circumstances that affect my ability to give blood” under “eligibility.

garhkal
07-13-2014, 10:37 PM
I read the linked articles and saw nothing that indicated there is a “big push to host gay blood drives.” There were blood drives held in 61 cities on Friday July 11 in an effort to draw attention to and protest the banning of gay and bisexual men from giving/donating blood. (Unless I missed something.)

I searched all four articles that were linked in the original post (OP), and could not find the word sexist. (Maybe I missed it.) Do you have a source or is it your opinion?

The sexist part came from an article on this, on the GOPUSA website (and since i know how that site is bashed here, i didn't bother linking it as one of the articles). I will take the hit for misrepresenting that aspect.



You guys may be surprised at the number of things that can prevent you from being able to donate blood. Go here http://www.bloodsource.org/Donate/BloodFactsFAQs.aspx and click on “are there special circumstances that affect my ability to give blood” under “eligibility.

Exactly. There is a whole host of reasons one can't donate. SO why is this being singled out as being wrong/prejudicial?

Chris_1991-2011
07-14-2014, 12:17 AM
The sexist part came from an article on this, on the GOPUSA website (and since i know how that site is bashed here, i didn't bother linking it as one of the articles). I will take the hit for misrepresenting that aspect.

In retrospect my questioning the sexist portion of your original post, specifically asking for a source, really didn't serve a purpose. After rereading your original post, as well as your last, it comes across to me as you (honestly) questioning if the ban is sexist. As I type this it really doesn't matter where/if you read it, it's a valid question IMO. You could have worded your OP differently, but no big deal.


Exactly. There is a whole host of reasons one can't donate. SO why is this being singled out as being wrong/prejudicial?

It's being singled out as wrong/prejudicial/sexist because it is. We have the technology/screening techniques to catch any tainted blood before it makes it to hospitals. Men who have sex with other men ARE NOT the only ones that can contract HIV/AIDS. Heterosexual men and women can also contract it through various means, so why single out one group and ban them when all groups are vulnerable? Statistics may indicate a portion of one group has a higher likelihood of contracting it than everyone else, but if all groups (everyone) could potentially contract it, why ban the one portion of one group and not all groups? The ban made sense back in 1983 when it was enacted because we lacked knowledge about the disease, we lacked technology/screening procedures, and it (HIV/AIDS) was new and hadn't spread beyond the gay male community; yet. Are the technology/screening procedures foolproof? I have no idea.

After looking at the list of things that can prevent you from donating, I noticed that the key word is CAN. When I posted the link to the list I skimmed it and assumed it was a list of things that would prevent you from donating, when in reality some do while others can. There are 5 or 6 things that prevent you from donating. The rest won’t prevent you (outright anyway).


Why are these groups banned/prevented from donating blood? Science? Prejudice? Should gays be allowed because of “political correctness? Is it wrong/discriminatory? I’m sure we could spend “days” coming up with examples of real/possible/perceived discrimination as a means of why the law/ban against gay men is or isn’t right. Personally that’s a waste of time and something I don’t want to get into. Therefore I’ve said all I have to say on this subject.

tiredretiredE7
07-14-2014, 03:44 AM
Saw this on Fox. Apparently there is a big push to host gay pride blood drives, and to repeal the "Sexist" law that prohibits men who have sex with other men from donating blood.

But i notice in all the years this law has been around, NO one called it sexist, cause it only targeted men?

http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/59657524

http://www.fox21news.com/news/story.aspx?id=1068358#.U8A3ELGk0i0

http://www.gayblooddrive.com/#!

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=features&sc3=&id=161808

Also, there are many OTHER reasons that preclude someone from giving blood.
A time restraint (if you gave a few days ago you can't give again. So why not repeal this as it is discriminating against those who want to continually give.
Restraints against those who were overseas at certain locations during certain times (like the EU during the mad cow crisis) - what about this? Why not repeal that?

If this law does get repealed, and somehow a Gay person who donated tainted blood gets given to someone else, Who get's sued? The gay person for being allowed to donate it? THe blood bank for improper testing? BOTH?

The CDC has been following HIV rates among men who have sex with men and the rates are simply unacceptable. The CDC has spent a lot of tax payers money to educate gay men on how to have safe sex but these efforts have not changed the rate of infection among gay men. There is also a small window that HIV infected blood does NOT test positive so this greatly increases the chance of HIV infected blood getting into the blood supply and this is why gay men can not donate blood.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/sexualbehaviors/pdf/hiv_factsheet_ymsm.pdf

hustonj
07-14-2014, 03:26 PM
As somebody who used to run a monthly 2-day blood-drive . . ..

The Red Cross restrictions on who not to accept blood from are about three things:

1) Safety
2) The Perception of Safety
3) Cost

Just like when an insurance company charges a 22 year-old, single male with no driving history a significantly higher insurance rate than they do a 42 year-old, married mother of 4, the decisions are based on historical evidence and statistics.

The reality of HIV infection rates for the group in question is well documented.

Quick, accurate blood tests are not cheap enough for the Red Cross to use them for the entire donated supply, and anything else would require redefining the process they use when handling, testing and transferring blood, which would ALSO increase the cost of this donated resource.

The Red Cross blood donation arm is a huge money sink. The organization does what it can to keep those costs as low as possible while keeping the blood supply as great as possible. Cost/Benefit ratios are hard at work, here.

Until the cost (including risk) of better HIV testing for every donation is overwhelmed by the benefit of an increase in the available blood supply, there is no viable business reason to spend the extra money. The documented size of the potential donor group being excluded, along with historic donation rates, pretty clearly indicates that there's no risk of the additional donor pool making such a decision viable. Were it otherwise, the Red Cross is ALWAYS too desperate for blood not to have made the change without external pressure.

It isn't like the Red Cross passes the costs on. They will also allow you to donate a bag which they will throw away, so that you can hide the fact that the screening disqualified you . . .. So they do absorb costs in the interest of providing patient confidentiality. They also are explicit that you should not doante as a way of getting an HIV test.

ALSO . . ..

I feel it is important to remind people that Executive Branch regulation is NOT LAW.

Measure Man
07-14-2014, 03:37 PM
Also, giving blood is not a right.

So, what? No one claimed it was a right.

garhkal
07-14-2014, 07:48 PM
The CDC has been following HIV rates among men who have sex with men and the rates are simply unacceptable. The CDC has spent a lot of tax payers money to educate gay men on how to have safe sex but these efforts have not changed the rate of infection among gay men. There is also a small window that HIV infected blood does NOT test positive so this greatly increases the chance of HIV infected blood getting into the blood supply and this is why gay men can not donate blood.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/sexualbehaviors/pdf/hiv_factsheet_ymsm.pdf

So i take it you are for the ban to stay in place?

tiredretiredE7
07-15-2014, 02:26 PM
So i take it you are for the ban to stay in place?

I don't care either way, gay men will still donate. I can't donate due to being assigned to a European installation during the "mad cow" outbreak in England. I just wanted to make the actual facts concerning the reason why gay men are not allowed to donate with a credible link from the CDC.

garhkal
07-15-2014, 08:42 PM
Perhaps you should sue for your 'rights being trod on'..

E4RUMOR
09-26-2014, 01:24 PM
At least a massive amount of blood was donated. Hopefully it was all clean, and that's gotta count for something.

garhkal
09-26-2014, 05:13 PM
Anyone heard from this org how many pints they got donated?

sandsjames
09-26-2014, 05:17 PM
Anyone heard from this org how many pints they got donated?Don't know, don't care.