Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

[Ekolite]

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

Okay maybe Africans, I was thinking of Black British rather then immigrants. I don't know for sure but I believe people who have lived in Africa for some amount of time are also banned from donating. Not racism, just practicality.

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.

Thanks, I wasn't sure how they tested donations and this makes a lot of sense.

 

[Formaldehyde]

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.

They could easily change their procedures based on how frequently it actually occurs.

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.

That window is extremely short and is still present with anybody:

Old fears draining the U.S. blood supply

Letting gay men give blood could help bolster the supply. But, incredibly, despite ongoing shortages of blood that can and do cost lives, and no artificial substitute on the horizon, the FDA is letting prejudice and fear — not science — determine whether gays can give blood.

At one time, long ago, the gay-blood ban may have made sense. But it no longer does.

Testing for HIV and other infectious diseases, as the Red Cross and the America’s Blood Centers experts told the FDA, has improved enormously since 1983. The strict testing of today will screen out their blood if it is infected with HIV. The only exception is men newly infected within three weeks prior to donating. Admittedly this "window period" during which someone can be infected with HIV and not test positive even with the best of tests is a risk. But the right response is to exclude anyone who has engaged in any risky sexual or drug behavior for, say, a month prior to donating blood — not those who had sex with a man 30 years ago!

he AIDS epidemic has been with us for 25 years. The policy currently governing blood donation in the United States has remained unchanged for 24 years. Given the need, we should be willing and grateful to accept blood from any healthy American willing to donate. The FDA just does not get it. Fear and prejudice are terrible reasons to let you or someone you love die.

Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

 

[emzie]

But it's discrimination...

They also discriminate against people who've merely been to some countries, they discriminate against former and current IV drug users. They effectively discriminate against entire populations as a malaria prevention: growing up in Kenya, my granny got malaria as a kid; she is banned from giving blood to this day, 70 years later.

 

[Algeroth]

But it's discrimination...

It also discriminate aganist former prisoners and people with promiscuous sexual behaviour (At least hear in Czechia). But for some reason, I don't mind.

 

[NovaKart]

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.

Gay rights is a big issue in America now although this is on the lower end of the spectrum I would agree. Since this is a forum mainly for political issues I think it's only natural that it would come up a lot.

 

[Ekolite]

This isn't the 1960's..

Besides, CFCOT is pretty much unanimous on equal rights. Its a non-issue.

 

[classical_hero]

I don't think so about that Ekolite. Many of do not think that an homosexual relationship is of equal status as an heterosexual one.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Yep, gays are totally not second-class citizens or anything, just an uppity group that wants to push forth an agenda.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Okay maybe Africans, I was thinking of Black British rather then immigrants. I don't know for sure but I believe people who have lived in Africa for some amount of time are also banned from donating. Not racism, just practicality.

I don't know if 'Black Africans' are only immigrants. It seems that there are three groups (not counting mixed races). Black Africans, Black Carribean, and Black-Other, so which group does 'British Blacks' fit into, the "Black-Other"? Doesn't matter, all groups are higher than whites.

http://www.avert.org/uk-race-age-gender.htm
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/PEEG-statistical-bulletin.pdf

Black African:
798,800 Population
35,917 Cases of HIV
22.24 Population/case

Black Carribean:
615,200
3,006
204.66

Black-Other:
126,100
1,303
96.78

White (British, Irish, Other)
48,188,900
39,700
1,213.83

 

[Ekolite]

Well it may not be the official classification, although I've definitely seen it on some kind of form or document. I would consider Black African/Carribean to be people who have immigrated to the UK, and haven't been properly assimilated into British culture, while Black British are black people who might have roots in Africa or the Carribean, but have lived their whole lives in the UK, consider themselves British, speak fluent English etc etc. I'm suprised at the statistics to be honest, but like I said I'm pretty sure the rules exclude people who have spent a significant amount of time in Africa, who probably make up the majority of those cases. The rest might be made up largely by IV drug users who are also excluded. Goes without saying that being black and gay in the UK is rare, considering both are small minorities.

@classical hero: I said ''pretty much'' unanimous because you were about the one and only person I could think of who is vocally against equality. Well done for having your own opinion and everything, even if it is inhumane..

 

[Japanrocks12]

Since people are going to accuse me of pro-gay populism, I'll just lay out what should be plainly obvious to everyone:

1) The idea that gay men are significant in spreading AIDS was a myth constructed in the 80s before any real medical research had been done on AIDS.

2) This law is predicated on that myth, which has by now been thoroughly debunked.

3) There is no real reason to assume that a man who has had sex with a man has the virus in his bloodstream, unless you're a-ok with marginalizing a sexual minority in order to possible save time and money.

4) The proper way to do things would be to collect everyone's blood and screen it for the pathogen and antibodies to the pathogen.

5) Relevant to this case only: they seriously concluded that he had sex with other men on no substantial evidence apart from the way he acted. Your America, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Ekolite]

STI's, including HIV, spread more quickly in the MSM population because its members are equally (or possibly more, although this is dubious) promiscuous then heterosexuals, but within a smaller pool of participants. What has been debunked is the idea that you can catch AIDS from a gay person by sharing a glass with them, shaking their hand etc etc. But the fact of the matter is that HIV is simply more common amongst men who have sex with men. Particularly considering the three week blind period when HIV is present in the blood but doesn't show up in testing, it is absolutely neccessary for MSM to be banned from blood donation.

 

[warpus]

Well how else are they supposed to know he's gay then judging by his actions and behaviour?

Dude, trying to figure out who is gay and who isn't by their "behaviour" is the worst gay test I've heard of ever. It's just not going to be very effective.

If that's what American hospitals have been using as the litmus test for gayness, then I hate to break this to you but a LOT of gay men have donated blood and a lot of straight men were turned away for "being gay".

 

[Ekolite]

I know, you can't always tell whether someone is gay or not by their behaviour. Not everyone's a strereotype. However my point was more along the lines of ''act like a (stereotypical) gay, expect to be treated like one''. Its a grey area, but I think protecting the blood supply for those in need is more important then hurting a man's feelings because they thought he might be gay.

 

[Japanrocks12]

STI's, including HIV, spread more quickly in the MSM population because its members are equally (or possibly more, although this is dubious) promiscuous then heterosexuals, but within a smaller pool of participants.

This part is problematic, isn't based on any actual evidence beyond what might be stated as "collective guessing," and isn't even relevant -- individual gay men vary wildly in their degree of promiscuity. Surely you see the harm in herding them together and sticking the label "promiscuous" on all of them?

EDIT: Didn't see your last post. How can you think that it's okay for men to be treated as gay if they're being effeminate? There are actual medical procedures that are being eschewed here so that people can both save time and money and satisfy their appetite for discriminating against gays.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There are vastly more effeminate straight men in the US than gays. Here is an entertaining video that estimates that they outnumber effeminate gays by nearly 10:1.


Link to video.

 

[Ekolite]

I'm sorry but its maths, the average level of promiscuity amonst gays is similar to those amongst heterosexuals. Individual variation is totally irrelevent. It is mathematics that the spread of STI's will be faster in a smaller pool of equally promiscuous people.

I didn't say it was morally right for this individual case to be turned away, but I don't find it suprising that he was. Probably some homophobe taking the donations or someone who doesn't properly understand the rules as to who can donate and who can't. Regardless, if they thought he was gay and lying about it, it was better that he would be turned away then risk contaminating blood suppplies, which are pooled together by type to some degree. It wouldn't just be his own donation that was ruined. It was the lesser of two evils, morality is not black and white.

Giving blood is not some kind of universal right and I don't understand why you seem to think it is.

Ultimately the purity of blood samples neccessitates the prohibition of high risk groups from donating blood.

There are vastly more effeminate straight men in the US than gays. Here is an entertaining video that estimates that they outnumber effeminate gays by nearly 10:1.

..Only about ten percent of the population is gay. Hardly a suprise there then?

 

[Japanrocks12]

I'm sorry, but in this country, we don't handle individual medical procedures on an assembly line based on the law of averages.

 

[Ekolite]

I don't think you understand the point.

 

[Japanrocks12]

You're trying to justify a stupid discriminatory practice by saying that he was the victim of an otherwise reasonable assumption to make, instead of agitating for the assumption to not be made in the first place. I am trying to disagree with you.