Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

[MobBoss]

You dont have a 'right' to donate blood and can be rejected for several reasons, even some that have no bearing on HIV/AIDs at all (blood iron content/blood pressure, etc).

So since you dont have a right to donate - if your're refused then the answer is simple. Get over it.

EDIT: And fwiw, I see no need to make the entire process more expensive than necessary, and I see the screening process as a efficient method to help keep tainted blood out of our blood supply.

 

[Ekolite]

Just a matter of practicality. I don't know how they do things in the USA, but in my country a lot of blood donations are collected by mobile vans which travel around collleges and work places and so on. They don't stay that long.

Plus making it any more difficult would result in less people donating. Not everyone has time to visit a clinic three weeks in advance and then go back again. You'd probably loose more donations then you would make up from the MSM group.

EDIT: Also what if they then got HIV during the waiting period!?

 

[Japanrocks12]

EDIT: And fwiw, I see no need to make the entire process more expensive than necessary, and I see the screening process as a efficient method to help keep tainted blood out of our blood supply.

I think you missed the part of the article where it indicates the guy wasn't screened at all.

Also there is a world of difference between someone assuming you have the virus because you said you're gay and a test that shows you have improper blood pressure, so that's a ludicrous and irrelevant thing to bring up.

 

[MobBoss]

Just a matter of practicality. I don't know how they do things in the USA, but in my country a lot of blood donations are collected by mobile vans which travel around collleges and work places and so on. They don't stay that long.

Plus making it any more difficult would result in less people donating. Not everyone has time to visit a clinic three weeks in advance and then go back again. You'd probably loose more donations then you would make up from the MSN group.

It often is the same way in areas in the USA - we have two local blood bank agencies, and both operate modified school buses that they use to drive out to work locations to collect.

In fact, this last year, they had a promo thing going on with the local breweries - donate a pint of blood and get a coupon for a pint of beer. I donated every time I could.

But you are entirely correct - we dont want to discourage donating by making it needlessly harder to do.

I think you missed the part where the guy wasn't screened at all

I think you missed the part where my reply was aimed at recommendations to make testing more cumbersome and expensive.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This apparently wasn't a Bloodmobile-style donation. If it had been, he would not have been rejected for not passing the "gaydar". Instead, this was an operation which apparently solely caters to poor people as an alternate form of income generation. But they are first apparently required to pass a one-time screening test to weed out any effeminate-looking individuals or possible IV-drug users.

 

[Japanrocks12]

So you would all rather cut corners to save money instead of doing things the proper medical way. I see.

 

[MobBoss]

Also there is a world of difference between someone assuming you have the virus because you said you're gay and a test that shows you have improper blood pressure, so that's a ludicrous and irrelevant thing to bring up.

Have you ever even donated blood? Its part of the screening process and quite relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Ekolite]

Well the main point isn't saving money its maximising clean donations. You would loose a lot of donations if you had to be screened three weeks in advance. Especially considering most people decide to give blood on a whim when they see the bus parked outside.

 

[Japanrocks12]

It's not the same kind of thing. Blood pressure is a variable directly related to the usability of the blood, perceived gayness of an individual is at the least three degrees of separation away. Please tell me that you can see that.

EDIT: and yes, I have donated blood. Nobody has asked me if I have had sex with other men.

 

[MobBoss]

So you would all rather cut corners to save money instead of doing things the proper medical way. I see.

I think saving money and doing things the 'proper medical way' are both needed, especially given the state of our healthcare system.

I have no problem with the screening system the way it is. No one should as its precisely doing something to both save money and do things properly.

Just because 1 person was denied to donate somewhere doesnt mean we have to scrap the entire way we do business. Thats just silly. Especially when the only 'evidence' you have is a 1 sided allegation. And again, no one has a RIGHT to donate blood. That simple fact should end the entire conversation right there.

 

[NovaKart]

Who the hell says this has to do with just 1 person.

 

[Japanrocks12]

And again, no one has a RIGHT to donate blood. That simple fact should end the entire conversation right there.

I think people have a right to challenge practices that are blatantly discriminatory.

 

[MobBoss]

It's not the same kind of thing. Blood pressure is a variable directly related to the usability of the blood, perceived gayness of an individual is at the least three degrees of separation away. Please tell me that you can see that.

Actually, you are wrong. Blood pressure is a issue concerning the health of the donor, not the usability of the blood. They dont want people dropping dead or having a heart attack just by giving blood.

Would you see a problem in them turning away an obese person for perceived health reasons?

No?

Well then.

EDIT: and yes, I have donated blood. Nobody has asked me if I have had sex with other men.

I have literally given blood hundreds of times over the years. Each and every single time I have been asked that question. Ergo: I dont think you have donated blood at all....at least certainly not in the USA.

Who the hell says this has to do with just 1 person.

Well, since the media isnt flooded with this particular issue - and there is only 1 complaintant in the OP story - it seems to me that this has to do with 1 person and 1 particular donation facility.

Or are you saying this is some kind of national problem?

I think people have a right to challenge practices that are blatantly discriminatory.

Not all discrimination is bad.

 

[NovaKart]

We're talking about a policy that effects lots of people, not only this one case.

 

[downtown]

I don' really object to preventing homosexuals from donating blood (although thats for pragmatic reasons, and there was a cost efficient and practical way of doing the necessary testing, then I imagine it would be okay)...but using "gaydar" to weed out possible donors seems completely ridiculous. Somebody should get in trouble for that.

 

[aelf]

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...

I love this kind of foaming about news "bias". Only the naive expect news to be 'objective' or 'unbiased'. Maybe it's like how they expect that everyone can be treated completely equally under the law, as if their persons are interchangeable (a logic that is strangely not applied to property ownership, though).

People will find all kinds of rationalisations for their prejudices, whether it's something to do with the evil liberal media or their notion of 'rights'.

 

[MobBoss]

We're talking about a policy that effects lots of people, not only this one case.

Its not policy to reject someone because of their appearance.

So, no, this isnt about a policy at all.

 

[NovaKart]

We're not only talking about this one case and you should know that considering your responses above.

 

[Ajidica]

Basicaly what dt said. Prohibiting gays from giving blood due to the danger of transmitting HIV is prudent (of course, for permenant locations there should be the option of undergoing tests or being allowed to donate if medical professionals say you don't have HIV) but how the person went about prohibiting him from donating wasn't the best way to go about it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I seriously doubt most gays frequently practice dangerous sex acts which may lead to becoming infected. As Dr Caplan stated, the expert in medical ethics which I posted earlier, merely asking someone if they have done so in the past month would be sufficient.