Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Here are a few more details courtesy of ABC News:

Seriously, the article sounds made-up. I've never heard of a FDA regulation banning gays from donating blood. All blood donations are subjected to screening tests for various infectious diseases, including HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis-B and C. Since routine screening, transfusion infectious have virtually disappeared. Maybe there was a time before 1985 when gays were excluded, but that regulation can't possibly be in force today.

What it sounds like is that some blood collection company, when faced with a homophobic employee, decided to excuse the behavior by citing some ancient regulation that was probably never seriously in force. Maybe the FDA never repealed it, but everyone with a functioning brain has understood that since 1985, it's been obsolete.

Or maybe this guy made the whole story up.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There are apparently two issues here.

One issue is this fly-by-night blood donor company that apparently primarily caters to poor blacks in Gary. They may very well be making their own "gaydar" rules based on running into trouble with tainted blood in the past, likely from IV drug users. Then again, the guy in the story may very well be lying. But I think he is far more credible than they are based on the comments of their "customers" I posted earlier.

The other issue is the exclusion of any gays in the US if they have ever had male homosexual sex at all, and which has apparently been changed to any homosexual sexual contact within the past year fairly recently. According to the interview with Dr. Caplan, these rules have either been almost completely or totally relaxed in some other countries now, but the US isn't one of them and neither is Britain. Read the NPR dialog with him that Novakart originally posted a few pages ago, and I did again on the previous page for details. The FDA clearly decided to keep their current rules last year when they voted 9-6 against changing the policy.

If these rules are actually not enforced anymore, someone should tell Dr. Caplan and the other gays so they can go back to donating blood, not to mention Sen. Kerry and other congressmen who are actively campaigning to finally get them changed.

 

[MobBoss]

Yes it is.

Uhm. You may want to check on that. While some states may make sexual preference non-discriminatory, I dont think its been done on a federal level.

If I had homosexual blood, would I gain all the powers of a homosexual?

Homosexuals have special powers?

Seriously, the article sounds made-up. I've never heard of a FDA regulation banning gays from donating blood. All blood donations are subjected to screening tests for various infectious diseases, including HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis-B and C. Since routine screening, transfusion infectious have virtually disappeared. Maybe there was a time before 1985 when gays were excluded, but that regulation can't possibly be in force today.

Uh..Arent you a doctor? Men that have sex with men have been banned from donating blood since 1983.

What it sounds like is that some blood collection company, when faced with a homophobic employee, decided to excuse the behavior by citing some ancient regulation that was probably never seriously in force. Maybe the FDA never repealed it, but everyone with a functioning brain has understood that since 1985, it's been obsolete.

Apparently you missed the link from the FDA I provided earlier in the thread that directly contradicts your comment here.

Or maybe this guy made the whole story up.

Entirely possible.

There are apparently two issues here.

One issue is this fly-by-night blood donor company that apparently primarily caters to poor blacks in Gary. They may very well be making their own "gaydar" rules based on running into trouble with tainted blood in the past, likely from IV drug users. Then again, the guy in the story may very well be lying. But I think he is far more credible than they are based on the comments of their "customers" I posted earlier.

So you base his 'credibility' upon utterly anonymous comments posted re: a news story?

How can that be anything but totally accurate.

The other issue is the exclusion of any gays in the US if they have ever had male homosexual sex at all, and which has apparently been changed to any homosexual sexual contact within the past year fairly recently.

No, its not been changed. Apparently that was the recommended change, but it was defeated.

According to the interview with Dr. Caplan, these rules have either been almost completely or totally relaxed in some other countries now, but the US isn't one of them and neither is Britain.

Again, false. I posted a small excerpt of nations that perma-ban gays from donating blood based upon them having sex with other men.

Read the NPR dialog with him that Novakart originally posted a few pages ago, and I did again on the previous page for details. The FDA clearly decided to keep their current rules last year when they voted 9-6 against changing the policy.

No, this wasnt the FDA that voted this, but the advisory panel that 'advises' the FDA on that particular issue.

If these rules are actually not enforced anymore, someone should tell Dr. Caplan and the other gays so they can go back to donating blood, not to mention Sen. Kerry and other congressmen who are actively campaigning to finally get them changed.

Rules are indeed being enforced, at least in my liberal state of Washington where I donate blood...and again, Sen. Kerry isnt a medical professional, so why dont we leave this up to the professionals as you suggested earlier in this thread?

 

[Atticus]

Aids originated from a homosexual man - - -

Moderator Action: If you're saying this kind of things, you'd better back them up. And I'm not talking here about prevalence or transmission of AIDS among homosexuals, but the origin of AIDS.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I found your link, MobBoss, and I think I see what the problem is.

There has been a policy of excluding male homosexuals (and not lesbians, mind you) from donating blood, by the FDA, but this has only been enforced through questionnaires. If a donor lies there is nothing anyone could do about it. It's not been an issue because it was completely unenforceable, and because since 1985, all donations are screened for HIV. The screening has largely eliminated the transmission of HIV, and other bloodborne pathogens, through transfusion, so it's become a regulation that no one pays any attention to. That's why I've never heard of it. It's as good as not existing.

In practice, blood donors are never actually asked this question. They are just handed a form to fill out. Considering how commonplace blood shortages are, I would doubt that donors would be so easily refused. This guy's experience just indicates that there are some bigots out there who are just looking for a law to enforce of their own prejudice.

 

[MobBoss]

Uhm. No, your're directly wrong about donors being asked that question in practice. They absolutely are. I give blood often, and I get asked that question each and every time.

While people are indeed handed a form to be filled out, then you are indeed asked the questions on that same form verbally.

And no, its not bigoted in consideration of the statistics surrounding HIV and the facts given on the FDA website. Bigotry has nothing to do with keeping the blood supply clean, and as I have stated there are also other disqualifiers from donating blood that have nothing to do with HIV or gay men in particular.

Now that doesnt mean that some people will cry 'bigot' at the drop of a hat for the simple reason of avoiding actually discussing the pertinent facts and specific issues for why such a ban exists. Its not an answer to the question at all, but an attempt to blameshift the reason for it onto others so people dont have to face facts.

 

[Arakhor]

So, amongst all the pointless quote-bashing, do you actually support people from being forbidden to give blood due to their behaviour alone?

 

[MobBoss]

So, amongst all the pointless quote-bashing, do you actually support people from being forbidden to give blood due to their behaviour alone?

First of all, using facts to refute rhetoric is never pointless.

Secondly, to answer your question, if said demograph's HIV rate was increasing due to that behavior (it is), and that demograph currently had 44 times the rate of others (it does), of course I would.

I think the real question here is given the real facts surrounding this issue, why wouldnt YOU do the same?

You see, the point is this. People often lament about gay issues being private/bedroom only type things, and people need to get out of that arguement for that reason. I buy that. But this is a particular issue where a gay issue (the HIV rate) moves out of the private bedroom and into a position where that behavior can have the real result of harming others via the blood supply. I dont care what people do in their own homes if it doesnt hurt others, but I draw the line when someone needing a transfusion gets something like HIV through the blood supply because the test didnt catch it (its not 100%) or someone made a mistake (human error can indeed occur).

I dont see that as unreasonable at all. Especially given the real facts surrounding this issue. This isnt a human rights issue, its not even a bigotry issue, its a lets keep our blood supply as clean as possible issue. And in consideration of that, I would hope that people that do high-risk behaviors (high risk sex, needle/iv drug use, etc.) would see thats the case and appreciate the effort to keep blood borne disease out of the blood supply.

At some point doesnt the concern for the greater good outweigh one persons faux outrage over not being able to donate blood? And fwiw, if the gay men's HIV rate as a demograph were comparitive with everyone elses, and not shockingly higher, I would agree that the ban would need to be lifted. You wouldnt hear a peep of objection out of me, because that would reasonable. But totally ignoring how utterly higher that HIV rate is in comparison, or the fact that the rate is also increasing and not decreasing seems to be the status quo among those wanting to remove the ban. Not a good idea if you ask me.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Secondly, to answer your question, if said demograph's HIV rate was increasing due to that behavior (it is), and that demograph currently had 44 times the rate of others (it does), of course I would.

So if you thought someone was gay because of their manner of speaking, you wouldn't even ask them the question "have you had sex with other men?"

 

[MobBoss]

So if you thought someone was gay because of their manner of speaking, you wouldn't even ask them the question "have you had sex with other men?"

No, I would absolutely ask them the question since thats precisely part of the screening process

Why would you think I would assume someone's gay?

Earlier I stated that this issue in the OP is singular. An individual complaint, not really an arguement to redo the 1983 ban. If the screener simply assumed he was gay, then that would be wrong to do. He needed to have the direct question asked of him since its a requirement of the process.

 

[warpus]

If the screener simply assumed he was gay, then that would be wrong to do.

I was under the impression that this point alone was all we were discussing (or were supposed to discuss anyway) in this thread - that the guy was assumed to be gay simply because he was flamboyant.

 

[JollyRoger]

Is Michelle Bachman disappointed her husband was prevented from giving blood?

 

[MobBoss]

I was under the impression that this point alone was all we were discussing (or were supposed to discuss anyway) in this thread - that the guy was assumed to be gay simply because he was flamboyant.

And I think pretty much everyone agreed that its wrong to deny someone simply based upon their perception.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I do have one issue with this.

Why should being gay alone be a disqualifier?

I'm a virgin, shouldn't I be allowed to donate provided I'm not a carrier?

I understand the risk for those who are sexually active, but if you've never had contact with another, then HIV just won't pop up...

Of course, there is the incentive to lie.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I do have one issue with this.

Why should being gay alone be a disqualifier?

I'm a virgin, shouldn't I be allowed to donate provided I'm not a carrier?

I understand the risk for those who are sexually active, but if you've never had contact with another, then HIV just won't pop up...

Of course, there is the incentive to lie.

Being gay is not a disqualifier, being a man who has sex with other men is.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Being gay is not a disqualifier, being a man who has sex with other men is.

Based on this story, the gay part alone is a disqualifier in some parts.

Which is just wrong; the MSM ban makes SOME sense, even if it seems a bit morally wrong. But a blanket gay ban has no rationale whatsoever.

 

[warpus]

And I think pretty much everyone agreed that its wrong to deny someone simply based upon their perception.

Okay, so why are we still talking then?

 

[MobBoss]

Based on this story, the gay part alone is a disqualifier in some parts.

Which is just wrong; the MSM ban makes SOME sense, even if it seems a bit morally wrong. But a blanket gay ban has no rationale whatsoever.

There has been some equating in this thread with being gay as having sex with other men. But to clarify, the actual question asked isnt 'are you gay' its 'have you ever had sex with another man'?

There are some few cases where someone, like yourself, may identify as being gay, but still has not ever had sex, so that is why the question is parsed as it is.

Okay, so why are we still talking then?

 

[Tani Coyote]

There has been some equating in this thread with being gay as having sex with other men. But to clarify, the actual question asked isnt 'are you gay' its 'have you ever had sex with another man'?

There are some few cases where someone, like yourself, may identify as being gay, but still has not ever had sex, so that is why the question is parsed as it is.

It says here the person was denied on suspicion of being gay, despite that not inherently implying there was MSM status involved. Given his youth, virgin status is believeable.

Now, MSM status, the ban on that has some basis in logic due to statistics. But being gay in and of itself being banned just seems silly.

 

[The_Tyrant]

Based on this story, the gay part alone is a disqualifier in some parts.

Which is just wrong; the MSM ban makes SOME sense, even if it seems a bit morally wrong. But a blanket gay ban has no rationale whatsoever.

Sounds like you're more concerned with social justice than the health and well-being of those receiving donated blood.