Canadian Blood Services ban

[msdogfood]

Hi

I put this in federal politics because Canadian Blood Services is the managing body of the Canadian blood supply system. On Thursday, Sept. 9/10, Canadian Blood Services won a court ruling that allowed it to maintain its ban against collecting blood from gay men. The only part of the ruling that I am concerned will have a true political impact is that the judge stated the C.B.S. is a non-profit organization and therefore not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it is not a government or state actor and views it instead as a private corporation. The ruling is not available in digital form yet or I would have provided the link. One of the groups concerned about the aspect of the ruling is the Canadian Aids Society. The Society feels that since the C.B.S. is considered a private entity, in the future the government could incorporate any of its own departments making them private companies and escaping the rules of the Charter. I see their point, however, anyone can sue a private corporation. Does this also apply to charities? I think it does but I don't know. The C.B.S. has an unusual corporate structure. It is non-profit however the board of directors is selected by the Province and by the government of Canada and is funded provincially and federally. If this is the case, how did the judge come to the conclusion that is was a non-profit organization.

Anyone want to take a crack at this? If you're a lawyer, that would help.

Thanks

[Wilber]

The rights and security of blood recipients has to take precedence over the rights of donors. CBS can refuse whoever they want if they perceive something to be an undue risk. CBS came to be in the first place because the Red Cross didn't do enough screening for HIV. They refused my wife because she is over 61 and had never donated before. I used to donate but am now ineligible because I spent more than three months in the UK between 1980 and 1996. We would both like to donate but that's just tough.

[bjre]

politicians always have passion on such kind of things to waste tax dollars that pay their salary. No matter ban or not ban, no real problems solved. It is much easier than economy, jobless rate and others. Corporate controlled media help to make such topic focused. This is so called democracy. useless.

[nicky10013]

I think it is discriminatory. They're asking the question based on "risky" activity, in this case anal sex. The problem is that many straight couples who have just as much possibility of sleeping around as any gay person, also practice anal sex. The question should be about the activity itself and not who it's with. Any unprotected sexual experience has the possibility of being dangerous. They should be rejecting the risky behaviour and not assume that applies to gay men while it doesn't apply to anyone else.

Also, for anyone who has actually donated blood, you'd know that they in fact test every blood donation. I've been told that and have read it in their pamphlets while waiting.. There's the main bag that takes about a pint and a little side bag which goes to the lab. Indeed, one piece of literature says that the CBS retains the right to inform you that you've tested positive for HIV even though you technically don't consent to an HIV test. So, I fail to see why they feel the need to reject gay men when they implement universality in terms of blood testing.

[Wilber]

I think it is discriminatory. They're asking the question based on "risky" activity, in this case anal sex. The problem is that many straight couples who have just as much possibility of sleeping around as any gay person, also practice anal sex. The question should be about the activity itself and not who it's with. Any unprotected sexual experience has the possibility of being dangerous. They should be rejecting the risky behavior and not assume that applies to gay men while it doesn't apply to anyone else.

Also, for anyone who has actually donated blood, you'd know that they in fact test every blood donation. I've been told that and have read it in their pamphlets while waiting.. There's the main bag that takes about a pint and a little side bag which goes to the lab. Indeed, one piece of literature says that the CBS retains the right to inform you that you've tested positive for HIV even though you technically don't consent to an HIV test. So, I fail to see why they feel the need to reject gay men when they implement universality in terms of blood testing.

It's discriminatory, so what? It is their job to discriminate to safeguard those who are receiving blood. Donors, I have news for you. It isn't about you. There are many things that can disqualify people who have not been diagnosed with any particular disease. I am disqualified because I spent more than three months in the UK during a certain period because I might have caught mad cow from eating a burger at Micky Dees on Oxford street for crying out loud. If they test every sample why not let intravenous drug users donate as well. Deal with it.

[capricorn]

I think it is discriminatory.

Of course it is. It discriminates against potentially infected blood in favour of blood less likely to contaminate the recipient of a blood transfusion.

Also, for anyone who has actually donated blood, you'd know that they in fact test every blood donation. I've been told that and have read it in their pamphlets while waiting..

===

So, I fail to see why they feel the need to reject gay men when they implement universality in terms of blood testing.

I read that the HIV virus can remain dormant up to 10 years. Blood taken today could infect a person years after a transfusion. Universality of testing does not enter the equation.

Indeed, one piece of literature says that the CBS retains the right to inform you that you've tested positive for HIV even though you technically don't consent to an HIV test.

I see that as a good thing. Caught in the early stages, someone with HIV stands a chance. Not knowing it could result in full blown AIDS and cause an early death. Same with cancer and some other diseases. The earlier it's detected the more chance of survival.

I'm delighted to know that Canadian Blood Services is doing all it can to minimize the risks associated with blood transfusions.

[nicky10013]

It's discriminatory, so what? It is their job to discriminate to safeguard those who are receiving blood. Donors, I have news for you. It isn't about you. There are many things that can disqualify people who have not been diagnosed with any particular disease. I am disqualified because I spent more than three months in the UK during a certain period because I might have caught mad cow from eating a burger at Micky Dees on Oxford street for crying out loud. If they test every sample why not let intravenous drug users donate as well. Deal with it.

I don't disagree that there should be stringent requirments to give blood. However, they should penalize the activity which they believe leads to high risk, which is anal sex (homosexuality and anal sex aren't synonymous, either). what they're doing is broad judgement of an entire community.

The analogy of intravenous drug users don't apply, either. Why? Because like I said, they're penalizing the act, and not a broad community associated with IV drug use.

[nicky10013]

Of course it is. It discriminates against potentially infected blood in favour of blood less likely to contaminate the recipient of a blood transfusion.

No, it's based on assumed sexual activity, that people are having unprotected anal sex. Quite a few people do that regardless of sex. Why should gay men be singled out when they're clearly not the only demographic which engages of any kind of risky sexual activity? Especially when their blood will be tested anyway? They should be asking whether or not they're having unprotected sex, that's for sure. However, whether it's man on man or not doesn't really make a difference.

I read that the HIV virus can remain dormant up to 10 years. Blood taken today could infect a person years after a transfusion. Universality of testing does not enter the equation.

Yes. Just because HIV remains dormant doesn't mean human beings don't test positive for HIV.

I see that as a good thing. Caught in the early stages, someone with HIV stands a chance. Not knowing it could result in full blown AIDS and cause an early death. Same with cancer and some other diseases. The earlier it's detected the more chance of survival.

I'm delighted to know that Canadian Blood Services is doing all it can to minimize the risks associated with blood transfusions.

Due to the advanced nature of retroviral drugs, with the proper medication both HIV and AIDS have become chronic, not fatal conditions.

Edited September 11, 2010 by nicky10013

[Moonlight Graham]

Indeed, one piece of literature says that the CBS retains the right to inform you that you've tested positive for HIV even though you technically don't consent to an HIV test. So, I fail to see why they feel the need to reject gay men when they implement universality in terms of blood testing.

It's precautionary. What if a test slips up. More importantly, what about new STD's (aka STI's) that may come about that don't even exist yet and aren't detected/tested for a while as HIV was? Gay men are obviously most prone to certain STD's because of the nature of how they have sex (it's all about the anus i tells ya!)

[g_bambino]

On Thursday, Sept. 9/10, Canadian Blood Services won a court ruling that allowed it to maintain its ban against collecting blood from gay men.

I wonder how they'll be able to tell a man is gay. Is there some kind of mark now?

[Moonlight Graham]

I wonder how they'll be able to tell a man is gay. Is there some kind of mark now?

wildly outrageous sunglasses.

[Jack Weber]

I wonder how they'll be able to tell a man is gay. Is there some kind of mark now?

Impeccable fashion sense?

[g_bambino]

wildly outrageous sunglasses.

Oh, wait, I mean:

[msdogfood]

Hi

I put this in federal politics because Canadian Blood Services is the managing body of the Canadian blood supply system. On Thursday, Sept. 9/10, Canadian Blood Services won a court ruling that allowed it to maintain its ban against collecting blood from gay men. The only part of the ruling that I am concerned will have a true political impact is that the judge stated the C.B.S. is a non-profit organization and therefore not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it is not a government or state actor and views it instead as a private corporation. The ruling is not available in digital form yet or I would have provided the link. One of the groups concerned about the aspect of the ruling is the Canadian Aids Society. The Society feels that since the C.B.S. is considered a private entity, in the future the government could incorporate any of its own departments making them private companies and escaping the rules of the Charter. I see their point, however, anyone can sue a private corporation. Does this also apply to charities? I think it does but I don't know. The C.B.S. has an unusual corporate structure. It is non-profit however the board of directors is selected by the Province and by the government of Canada and is funded provincially and federally. If this is the case, how did the judge come to the conclusion that is was a non-profit organization.

Anyone want to take a crack at this? If you're a lawyer, that would help.

Thanks

The part of this that i have a real problem with is

This

" judge stated the C.B.S. is a non-profit organization and therefore not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it is not a government or state actor and views it instead as a private corporation. The ruling is not available in digital form yet or I would have provided the link. One of the groups concerned about the aspect of the ruling is the Canadian Aids Society. The Society feels that since the C.B.S. is considered a private entity, in the future the government could incorporate any of its own departments making them private companies and escaping the rules of the Charter. "

Edited September 11, 2010 by msdogfood

[Smallc]

The part of this that is whoring for me is this

This is one of those times when proper grammar and spelling is probably important.

[DrGreenthumb]

I think it is discriminatory. They're asking the question based on "risky" activity, in this case anal sex. The problem is that many straight couples who have just as much possibility of sleeping around as any gay person, also practice anal sex. The question should be about the activity itself and not who it's with. Any unprotected sexual experience has the possibility of being dangerous. They should be rejecting the risky behaviour and not assume that applies to gay men while it doesn't apply to anyone else.

Also, for anyone who has actually donated blood, you'd know that they in fact test every blood donation. I've been told that and have read it in their pamphlets while waiting.. There's the main bag that takes about a pint and a little side bag which goes to the lab. Indeed, one piece of literature says that the CBS retains the right to inform you that you've tested positive for HIV even though you technically don't consent to an HIV test. So, I fail to see why they feel the need to reject gay men when they implement universality in terms of blood testing.

Good on them, blood transfusion time is not the time to be politically correct. Anal sex, most often practiced by gay men is the highest risk factor HIV. I think they should exclude ANYONE who practices anal, with men or women.

[Smallc]

Anal sex, most often practiced by gay men

That is not at all true. Anal sex is most often practiced by heterosexual couples. There aren't enough gay men for them to be the ones performing the act most often.

It's funny how your idea of what people should and shouldn't be allowed to do really ends at your own wants and desires. There's more to the world than marijuana and guns, you know.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Smallc

[msdogfood]

This is one of those times when proper grammar and spelling is probably important.

Corrected

Edited September 11, 2010 by msdogfood

[msdogfood]

sorry all!

Edited September 11, 2010 by msdogfood

[msdogfood]

Is This not the true problem??.

................................

The part of this that i have a real problem with is

This

" judge stated the C.B.S. is a non-profit organization and therefore not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it is not a government or state actor and views it instead as a private corporation. The ruling is not available in digital form yet or I would have provided the link. One of the groups concerned about the aspect of the ruling is the Canadian Aids Society. The Society feels that since the C.B.S. is considered a private entity, in the future the government could incorporate any of its own departments making them private companies and escaping the rules of the Charter. "

[Wilber]

I don't disagree that there should be stringent requirments to give blood. However, they should penalize the activity which they believe leads to high risk, which is anal sex (homosexuality and anal sex aren't synonymous, either). what they're doing is broad judgement of an entire community.

The analogy of intravenous drug users don't apply, either. Why? Because like I said, they're penalizing the act, and not a broad community associated with IV drug use.

They are not "judging" anyone. Their mandate is to protect the health of people receiving blood, not the sensitivities of would be donors. Period.

[msdogfood]

So know sees this as a problem??

" C.B.S. is a non-profit organization and therefore not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"

[Molly]

So know sees this as a problem??

" C.B.S. is a non-profit organization and therefore not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"

I do.... but dragging the conversation away from rants about gay sex is a task beyond us all.

[Argus]

I think it is discriminatory. They're asking the question based on "risky" activity, in this case anal sex. The problem is that many straight couples who have just as much possibility of sleeping around as any gay person, also practice anal sex.

Discriminatory? I mean, if they were refusing to PROVIDE blood, or some other service, I suppose you might make the case. But what they're refusing is to accept a voluntary gift, if you will, from gay men. I don't see how you can make a claim that this is harming gay men.

As to risky sexual behaviour. Sorry, but your argument is BS. Sure there are some straight couples who engage in anal sex. Sure there are some straight people who sleep around. But the percentages are tiny compared to the gay community, whose own leaders have criticized them for resuming risky sexual behaviour - without condoms - with multiple partners. Gay men are sluts, let's face it, and they'll mount anything that doesn't beat them off with a stick.

[eyeball]

Is This not the true problem??.

................................

The part of this that i have a real problem with is

This

" judge stated the C.B.S. is a non-profit organization and therefore not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it is not a government or state actor and views it instead as a private corporation. The ruling is not available in digital form yet or I would have provided the link. One of the groups concerned about the aspect of the ruling is the Canadian Aids Society. The Society feels that since the C.B.S. is considered a private entity, in the future the government could incorporate any of its own departments making them private companies and escaping the rules of the Charter. "

Yes, any loophole devised to circumvent the Charter needs to be closed.

The fact this one has been opened around this particular issue seems almost Machiavellian - as if it was hoped the controversial nature of the issue would mask the controversial nature of the loophole.