Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

[NovaKart]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/man-says-rejected-blood-bank-seeming-gay-151627659.html

An Indiana man says a blood donation center rejected him as a donor because he appears to be gay--even though he isn't.

Aaron Pace, 22, recently visited Bio-Blood Components Inc., in Gary, which pays up to $40 for blood and plasma donations. But during the interview process, he said, he was told he couldn't give blood because he seems gay.

Though Pace is "admittedly and noticeably effeminate," according to the Chicago Sun-Times, he says he's straight.

"It's not right that homeless people can give blood but homosexuals can't," Pace told the paper. "And I'm not even a homosexual."

Even though the blood bank sounds like it is engaging in a discriminatory practice, it would only be following the law by rejecting Pace were he gay. In 1983, amid the early panic over AIDS, the Food and Drug Administration banned all men who had had sex with other men since 1977 from giving blood. At that time, there were no effective screening tests to identify HIV-positive blood.

Nowadays, all donated blood is tested for HIV and other infectious diseases before being given to hospitals. And a recent study found that the gay ban costs hospitals 219,000 pints of blood each year.

And yet, last year, the Department of Health and Human Services decided to maintain the policy--though an FDA committee called it "sub-optimal," and suggested that it would be better to develop a screening system based on individual behavior, not broad characteristics like sexuality.

Curt Ellis, the former director of The Aliveness Project of Northwest Indiana, an HIV education group, called the ban "unfair, outrageous and just plain stupid."

As for Pace, he's still mad about being rejected. "I was humiliated and embarrassed," he said. And just to be clear: He's not gay--not that there's anything wrong with it.

..

A few things not to do if you're going to donate blood:

Wear a T-shirt you got at a Cher or Madonna concert.

Mention your vacation to Mykonos.

Talk about last night's episode of Project Runway.

Use the word "fierce" or "fabulous"

Talk about interior design.


I can't remember if we've ever had a debate on this topic or if it was on another forum I go to. Think it was this one.

 

[Godwynn]

I'd rather have blood from a homosexual person than bleed to death.

I am the logic-king.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I can't say I sympathize. This isn't a rights issue. Donating blood is supposed to be for the well being of the patient needing blood. I couldn't care less about the donator as long as the medical staff do all in it's power to keep the patient as safe as possible.

 

[NovaKart]

Well that's pretty easy for you to say until you try to donate blood and people say you're not good enough cause you walk funny or something.

 

[GenMarshall]

This is quite appalling. They cannot judge him when he walks through the door. There's a reason why there are partitions for the nurses to conduct a medical interview/testing. They're overstepping their bounds when they just judge him face value.

 

[Gooblah]

Guys, they might catch teh HIV/gays frum teir blud!!!1!!!one!

...seriously though, that law should be amended to just mandating HIV screening.

 

[Ekolite]

Blood donation has always had a very strict set of rules for who can donate and who can't, and one group that can't is homosexuals. Despite the fact that I did once want to give blood but aren't able to, I've always been in support of these rules because they cut out those groups which are statistically more likely to have HIV (and possibly other diseases idk). Even if they do test each sample, ultimately you can never be too careful. HIV can and does spread through blood transfusion, and anyone more likely then normal to have HIV should be prevented from giving blood. Mistakes can happen after all.

As for this man being turned away. Well how else are they supposed to know he's gay then judging by his actions and behaviour? They should have asked him if he was or not, and then given him the benefit of the doubt if he said no, but ultimately it would be easy enough for someone to lie to prove some kind of point. It could even be an act of revenge against the world on his part, which isn't uncommon amongst people newly infected with HIV.

Its a grey area but I disagree that they were wrong to turn him away.

 

[Algeroth]

Are the hospitals in USA permitted to ask if the donor is gay or not?

 

[NovaKart]

They ask if you have had sex with another male. You can also be prevented if you're from certain countries or have spent time in those places, mostly African countries.

Since someone could be gay but never had sex before it wouldn't make sense to just straight out ask if someone is gay.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I've always been in support of these rules because they cut out those groups which are statistically more likely to have HIV (and possibly other diseases idk).

I can understand the reasoning, but don't agree with handling it this way. So where do you draw the line between what constitutes a 'group' that can or cannot donate? Blacks are more likely to have HIV, should they be 'banned' from donating, too? How about females since they are more likely than males (or the other way around if males have it more than females).

As for this man being turned away. Well how else are they supposed to know he's gay then judging by his actions and behaviour? They should have asked him if he was or not, and then given him the benefit of the doubt if he said no, but ultimately it would be easy enough for someone to lie to prove some kind of point. It could even be an act of revenge against the world on his part, which isn't uncommon amongst people newly infected with HIV.

So when they ask him* he could be lying anyways, so it's better to just make a judgement call on his body language/mannerisms? Why not just rely on the blood tests since that is far more accurate than humans judging one another.

*I donated several years ago and they do ask you questions such as "have you had gay sex in the last 10 years" and asking if you have any STD's. They still test the blood, and someone could lie, but by asking these questions before taking the donation it gives people a chance to leave rather than wasting the clinic's time withdrawing and testing the blood, and the would-be donor's time (and blood).

 

[Formaldehyde]

At least they no longer segregate or exclude based on race, and apparently even religion or ethnic group.

The donor's race or ethnic background is sometimes important since certain blood types, especially rare ones, are more common in certain ethnic groups.[18] Historically, donors were segregated or excluded on race, religion, or ethnicity, but this is no longer a standard practice.[19]

Footnote 19:

Drew graduated from Columbia University in 1940, with a Doctor of Science degree; he was the first African American to receive this degree. In his dissertation, "Banked Blood: A Study in Blood Preservation," Drew showed that liquid plasma lasted longer than whole blood. He was asked to be the medical supervisor on the "Blood for Britain" campaign, launched by the Blood Transfusion Betterment Association. At the height of World War II, Nazi warplanes were bombing British cities regularly and there was a desperate shortage of blood to treat the wounded. In order to meet the huge demand for plasma, Drew initiated the use of "bloodmobiles" -- trucks equipped with refrigerators. The Red Cross has continued to use them during blood drives. In 1941 after the success of "Blood for Britain," Drew became director of the American Red Cross Blood Bank in New York. He was asked to organize a massive blood drive for the U.S. Army and Navy, consisting of 100,000 donors. However, when the military issued a directive to the Red Cross that blood be typed according to the race of the donor, and that African American donors be refused, Drew was incensed. He denounced the policy as unscientific, stating that there was no evidence to support the claim that blood type differed according to race. His statements were later confirmed by other scientists, and the government eventually allowed African American volunteers to donate blood, although it was still segregated. Ironically, in 1977 the American Red Cross headquarters in Washington, D.C., was renamed the Charles R. Drew Blood Center.

Baby steps...

 

[Ekolite]

I can understand the reasoning, but don't agree with handling it this way. So where do you draw the line between what constitutes a 'group' that can or cannot donate? Blacks are more likely to have HIV, should they be 'banned' from donating, too? How about females since they are more likely than males (or the other way around if males have it more than females).

Well it depends just how much more likely it is. I doubt that blacks in the UK have a much higher chance of being HIV+ then whites, if at all. MSM (men who have sex with men) are statistically much more likely to be HIV+ and because they are also a relatively small population it just makes sense to ban them. You obviously have to weigh up the benefit, reduced chance of infected blood, against the cost of donations lost due to the potential ban. Although unlikely that an infected sample could make it through the system, you have to account for possible mistakes, and the utter devastation this would cause to the patient makes it worth taking extra care to make sure donations are clean and not innfected with disease.

Its the same reason that people who have recently visited parts of Africa, and hillariously, the USA are also banned from donating.

 

[classical_hero]

Well it is all about keeping the blood supply clean. You can never be too careful with that, but just because someone is effeminate, does not make them gay. Only those who are in high risk areas are banned from giving blood. Another disturbing thing about the situation is the fact that they are paying people to give blood.

 

[Formaldehyde]

As the articles point out, all blood donations are now checked for HIV and any other known form of blood-transmitted disease. This is just another example of discrimination towards gays, or in this case anybody who acts like some of them do.

And they have been paying people for blood donations for decades now.

 

[emzie]

Blood donation has always had a very strict set of rules for who can donate and who can't, and one group that can't is homosexuals. Despite the fact that I did once want to give blood but aren't able to, I've always been in support of these rules because they cut out those groups which are statistically more likely to have HIV (and possibly other diseases idk). Even if they do test each sample, ultimately you can never be too careful. HIV can and does spread through blood transfusion, and anyone more likely then normal to have HIV should be prevented from giving blood. Mistakes can happen after all.

As for this man being turned away. Well how else are they supposed to know he's gay then judging by his actions and behaviour? They should have asked him if he was or not, and then given him the benefit of the doubt if he said no, but ultimately it would be easy enough for someone to lie to prove some kind of point. It could even be an act of revenge against the world on his part, which isn't uncommon amongst people newly infected with HIV.

Its a grey area but I disagree that they were wrong to turn him away.

IIRC, they don't test each individual donation, but rather large batches of same-type blood. Thus if someone with HIV donates, it ruins many donations of blood.

It used to really bother me that the Red Cross screened out MSM, as I think it reinforces the idea that HIV = gay disease. But if I sit back, I understand why.

Well it is all about keeping the blood supply clean. You can never be too careful with that, but just because someone is effeminate, does not make them gay. Only those who are in high risk areas are banned from giving blood. Another disturbing thing about the situation is the fact that they are paying people to give blood.

It's illegal to pay for blood in the US. They pay for plasma.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

One problem with news stories like this is that they have a tendency to blow way out of proportion in relation to the actual newsworthiness. There's an obvious bias in the report and if there was anything to the story they should have done a better job reporting it.

I see this: "It's not right that homeless people can give blood but homosexuals can't," Pace told the paper. "And I'm not even a homosexual." The man's mind seems pretty made up about homosexual's right to donate and continues to say he's "not even a homosexual". Does he state that he's a heterosexual anywhere, or is he bi-, or something else? Pretty unclear...

This is just another example of discrimination towards gays, or in this case anybody who acts like some of them do.

No, it isn't.

 

[Algeroth]

As the articles point out, all blood donations are now checked for HIV and any other known form of blood-transmitted disease. This is just another example of discrimination towards gays, or in this case anybody who acts like some of them do.

The problem is that the disease have a window of opportunity after the donor is infected and before he starts making antibodies aganist that disease. If he donates the blood in this time, the screening won't catch anything.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I doubt that blacks in the UK have a much higher chance of being HIV+ then whites, if at all.

HIV and Africans in the UK

Africans in the UK are affected by HIV and AIDS to a far greater extent than other broadly defined ethnic groups, representing a third of new diagnoses in the UK during 2009.25 In 2009 HIV prevalence among black Africans was 4 percent, compared to 1 percent among the white population.26 Between 1995 and 2008, people of black African ethnicity accounted for 42 percent of the UK’s total HIV diagnoses, of which the overwhelming majority were attributed to heterosexual sex.27 Around 90 percent of the 23,288 black Africans who received HIV care in the UK in 2009 reported that they were infected during heterosexual sex and most acquired their infection in Africa.28

HIV diagnoses among black Africans and black Caribbeans often occur at a late stage of infection - when antiretroviral treatment is less likely to work as effectively. In 2007 over 40 percent of late diagnoses were among black Africans and 27 percent were among black Caribbeans, highlighting the need for increased HIV testing in this population.29

http://www.avert.org/aids-uk.htm

 

[Loppan Torkel]

The problem is that the disease have a window of opportunity after the donor is infected and before he starts making antibodies aganist that disease. If he donates the blood in this time, the screening won't catch anything.

But it's discrimination...

 

[Ekolite]

It's not paid for in the UK, its voluntary. I see it as just an extra precaution and I'm glad for it. Also you have to distinguish between gays and MSM, which includes men who are gay, bi, and in fact straight in some occasions, and for the record doesn't include gay men who haven't had sex with a man. Besides, frankly its a very minor issue as far as rights goes. What really matters is marriage equality, not blood donations.

To be honest I find it quite irritating as a gay man how this forum is so obsessive about homosexuality. Sometimes it seems every other thread is about gays. What LGBT want is for sexuality not to be made a big deal out of, and all you perfectly straight lib'ruls shouting the odds about equal rights all the time are actually only making it worse. It's not something that should be neverendingly debated, just something that should be accepted like any other part of normal society. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or disagree, just don't make such a bid deal out of it.