[Newsbot]

Title: Safety of blood supply trumps claim of discrimination by gay man
Category: Health
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2010-09-09 10:09:05
Canadian

[Canadiana55]

Score one for common sense.

[andyt]

Good on them. The group I really worry is being discriminated against are the IV drug users. I mean they have enough troubles without being denied this fundamental right.

[BartSimpson]

Gay men should not be discriminated against for blood donations. Are all gay men infected with disease? Isn't it only a small minority of them who have STD's or AIDS? Why should all of them have to suffer for the mistakes of a few radicals?

[Brenda]

Straight people also don't have STD's apparently.
On a sidenote, I can't donate either, because I've lived out of the country for more than whatever their rule is.

[Freakinoldguy]

After the debacle of the tainted blood scandal, you'd think that this idiot would be applauding the Canadian Blood Services for ensuring the safety of the blood supply.

But I guess when you're, special, your percieved rights should trump the rights and safety of everyone else.

Glad to see a judge finally using some freakin common sense when rendering a verdict.

[Bodah]

I don't get it. Don't they test all blood for all of this after it's donated ?

I know the aids virus can stay dormant in a person for several months before it can be tested for positive results. Does this mean tainted blood with the dormant aids virus can stay hidden ? Then infect the recipient receiving the blood later ?

[BartSimpson]

Gay men should be able to donate blood just like everyone else and anyone not liking that is a homophobe and a bigot.

[Brenda]

Bodah Bodah:

I don't get it. Don't they test all blood for all of this after it's donated ?

I know the aids virus can stay dormant in a person for several months before it can be tested for positive results. Does this mean tainted blood with the dormant aids virus can stay hidden ? Then infect the recipient receiving the blood later ?

That was my idea too.
It's equally ridiculous a foreigner cannot donate. They test blood. What's the deal?
Plus, who says straight women don't have AIDS?

[BartSimpson]

Saying that gay men have a higher risk of AIDS than anyone else is like saying Muslims are more likely to be terrorists than anyone else. It's just wrong.

[Khar]

Ironically, Brenda hit one of the points of contention right on the head. Young, heterosexual women are the highest group with HIV, with one quarter of all HIV cases coming from women 18-26. The American Red Cross on the other hand has already stated that there is no valid medical or scientific reason why gay men can't contribute blood -- it's simply an archaic rule left over from the 80s when there was a general phobia over getting homosexual man's blood due to the scare of HIV from that supposed high risk group. This question simply perpetuates it, limited thousands of potential donors who have attempted to give blood from giving any at all.

Of course, unfortunately, to get blood from homosexual men into the blood streams of others requires getting it through the FDA, who said it was too risky. But that's down in the states. The CBS, Canadian Blood Services, promised to do a review in the spring. Since this is now almost the fall and we're reading this article, I think the general idea of how that went could already be clear. Some nations out there do currently allow gay men to give blood, but most nations like the US, UK, and Canada do not. Unfortunately, the use of outdated statistics appears to be one of the main problems, although I do not know too much about that myself. Many countries have promised to do a review on it, such as the UK (which is ongoing) and Canada (I have zero clue what happened there) this year. Hoping for a change, personally, but I have a feeling why the old figures and such are used is to retain the policy and make the public feel safer about the blood which they are getting, even if the potential fear may be less than true.

The reason that Brenda cannot give blood, however, is because she falls into, I believe, the window of dates in which people who lived in Europe had higher risks of Variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease. I don't know how that is tested for, or if it can be, but I'd assume there is some risk with it slipping through the screening process if it made it on to the list.

They do test for various diseases and infections, but the screening process is not perfect. There are windows where such diseases as HIV cannot be tested, and it's very easy for the blood to go from being donated to being transfused into patients before that window actually closes and the infection can be tested for and found. I'm actually not sure on how many reasons there are why I personally can't give blood -- I think I breach at least three deferral questions (I know two for sure), but I'm not sure if those hold for the CBS or the Red Cross.

In any case, if I'm wrong in any of these cases feel free to correct me.

[kenmore]

What can I say... I agree with all but Canadian55. It is ridiculous to say gay men cannot give blood. I hang blood quite often and I hear doctors tell clients.. the blood is safe because of the screening developed over the past 10 or so years.
There are much higher risk groups giving blood than gay men.

[PluggyRug]

kenmore kenmore:

There are much higher risk groups giving blood than gay men.

That must be me.

Can't give blood cos I ate English beef. There's something wrong with it a mad cow once told me.