Canadian Blood Services ban

[nicky10013]

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.

Wow, talk about stereotypes here. Any actual statistics behind this?

[nicky10013]

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

I agree. However, they should be merely asking what risky activity people participate in. They shouldn't be denying an entire demographic of people based on the (wrong) assumptions of their sexual activity. Especially when they test every blood donation anyway. It's not like they're saving money on testing donations, they do it anyway.

Edited September 11, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

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.

I've also heard stats (the radio show I sometimes used to listen to had a gay guy come in once a week and answer questions about the community) that say 80% of all sexual acts between gay men is oral and not anal.

[eyeball]

I've also heard stats (the radio show I sometimes used to listen to had a gay guy come in once a week and answer questions about the community) that say 80% of all sexual acts between gay men is oral and not anal.

HIV can also be passed on through oral sex. I suspect the stats on oral sex amongst straight people are similarly high (I wish ).

In any case the more important issue here is the loophole in the Charter. This is like having a hole in the condom that protects the whole country. We could catch all sorts of nasty things if we don't close it.

[capricorn]

Why should gay men be singled out when they're clearly not the only demographic which engages of any kind of risky sexual activity?

What evidence is there that if MSM were allowed to give blood, the risk of HIV being passed on would increase?

The last review that was taken into the Blood Service policy determined, based on statistical and epidemiological analysis of risk, that if the ban on MSM donating blood were lifted the risk of HIV entering the blood stocks would rise by 500%. They also found that if the ban was changed to only exclude men who have had sex with another man in the previous 12 months the increase would still be around 60%.

It’s also not just about HIV. MSM are at significantly higher risk of acquiring and transmitting a range of other viruses and bacterial infections that could be passed on through blood transfusions, including some of the hepatitis viruses, syphilis and other infections. Even if someone doesn’t have HIV they could have one or some of these conditions.

http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/policy/healthpolicy/blooddonations/statisticalevidence/

That's a good enough reason for me.

[nicky10013]

http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/policy/healthpolicy/blooddonations/statisticalevidence/

That's a good enough reason for me.

And from a source we can trust.

[capricorn]

And from a source we can trust.

You really should think before you post such rubbish just to make yourself feel superior.

Terrence Higgins Trust is a British charity that campaigns on various issues related to AIDS and HIV. In particular, the charity aims to reduce the spread of HIV and promote good sexual health (including safe sex); to provide services on a national and local level to people with, affected by, or at risk of contracting HIV; and to campaign for greater public understanding of the impact of HIV and AIDS.

The Trust was the first charity in the UK to be set up in response to HIV, having been established in 1982[1]. It was initially named Terry Higgins Trust[2]. Terry Higgins died aged 37 on 4 July 1982 in St Thomas' Hospital, London. He was among the first people in the UK to die from AIDS. Terry's friends, notably his close friend and flat-mate Tony Calvert, Martyn Butler and Terry's partner Rupert Whitaker, started the Trust to raise funds for research as a way of preventing suffering due to AIDS. Shortly, with the generation of a groundswell of support for the organisation at a meeting at Red Lion Square, Tony Whitehead and others joined Tony Calvert Martyn Butler and Rupert Whitaker and, with the help of a new group of people, formally founded the organisation and saw it through registration as a charity to provide direct services to those affected by HIV. The trust was named after Terry to personalise and humanise the issue of AIDS. It was formalized in August 1983 when it adopted a constitution and opened a bank account, and the name of the trust was changed (Terrence rather than Terry) to sound more formal. It incorporated as a limited company in November 1983 and gained charitable status in January 1984.

The Trust is generally considered the UK's leading HIV and AIDS charity, and the largest in Europe. It is also the lead organisation in the England & Wales gay men's health promotion partnership CHAPS.

The charity received almost a million pounds in donations over the Christmas of 1992, with the proceeds of Queen's re-released chart-topper Bohemian Rhapsody going entirely to the charity, following the recent AIDS-related death of lead singer Freddie Mercury. Mercury had been concerned that financial support should be available to those less fortunate than himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrence_Higgins_Trust

You put yourself up as a champion of the rights of homosexuals but you have no qualms about ridiculing an endeavor whose sole purpose is to help improve the lives of homosexuals. Shame on you.

[Wilber]

I don't know why anyone would think they have a right to donate blood. The only ones who have rights in this case are the people who are dependent on blood transfusions for their lives and the CBS is responsible for making sure that blood is safe, not the donor's. Testing can only do so much. It can take up to three months or more from infection for HIV antibodies to show up in a test. Blood donations can be made every 56 days and screening has to be the primary means of prevention regardless of testing. It would be small consolation if you contracted HIV or HEP C from a transfusion and all CBS could say was, well the test was negative and we can't refuse a person the right to donate even though we think they are a higher risk. Far better the CBS is allowed to discriminate than be forced to put innocent lives at risk because someones feelings could be hurt.

I am excluded because I spent around four months in the UK during the eighties and might have contracted mad cow from eating British beef, even though I show no signs of the disease 14 years after the ban was lifted in 96. Should I be screaming about my rights? Absolutely not. Regardless of how slight the chances, the right of the person receiving that blood to have every precaution taken to ensure its safety takes precedence over the possibility my nose may be put out of joint. It is CBS's job to safeguard the recipient's right, not the donor's.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

“Put simply, blood donation is a gift,” Judge Aitkin said. “A gift is freely offered, but must also be freely received or freely declined. Canadian law has never recognized a duty or requirement to accept a gift.”

[nicky10013]

I don't know why anyone would think they have a right to donate blood. The only ones who have rights in this case are the people who are dependent on blood transfusions for their lives and the CBS is responsible for making sure that blood is safe, not the donor's. Testing can only do so much. It can take up to three months or more from infection for HIV antibodies to show up in a test. Blood donations can be made every 56 days and screening has to be the primary means of prevention regardless of testing. It would be small consolation if you contracted HIV or HEP C from a transfusion and all CBS could say was, well the test was negative and we can't refuse a person the right to donate even though we think they are a higher risk. Far better the CBS is allowed to discriminate than be forced to put innocent lives at risk because someones feelings could be hurt.

I am excluded because I spent around four months in the UK during the eighties and might have contracted mad cow from eating British beef, even though I show no signs of the disease 14 years after the ban was lifted in 96. Should I be screaming about my rights? Absolutely not. Regardless of how slight the chances, the right of the person receiving that blood to have every precaution taken to ensure its safety takes precedence over the possibility my nose may be put out of joint. It is CBS's job to safeguard the recipient's right, not the donor's.

No one anywhere has said it's a right to give blood. I'd drop that argument right away. What I've been saying is that they shouldn't be penalizing an entire group for an assumed activity when not all members of the group engage in that behaviour. Not only does this not apply to quite a few members of the gay community, it completely glosses over the sexual activity of straight people who are equally capable of carrying things like HIV. If you ask me, theoretically that leaves more people at risk simply because a greater number of straight people have unprotected sex and have STIs. Why do I say theoretically? BECAUSE THEY TEST ALL THE BLOOD SAMPLES ANYWAY SO THERE IS NO NEED TO CAST ONE GROUP ASIDE!

Instead of asking whether or not someone has had sex with a man, wouldn't it be more prudent to ask whether or not they've had unprotected anal sex? That way the gay population is covered and so are the vast hordes of straight people who sleep around just as much and also have unprotected anal sex with people they don't know.

[Wilber]

It asks quite a few questions about sexual conduct other than that just between men. Perhaps you should read it.LINK

Edited September 11, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

BECAUSE THEY TEST ALL THE BLOOD SAMPLES ANYWAY SO THERE IS NO NEED TO CAST ONE GROUP ASIDE!

As I have pointed out, there is a window between infection and when that infection will show up on a test, months and in some cases years. While testing is needed it is not a substitute for screening out those most likely to be at risk. You may believe that gay men do not present an unreasonable risk but you are not responsible for the safety of the blood supply nor can you be held financially or criminally responsible for any negligence resulting from the consequences of your decisions.

[eyeball]

It asks quite a few questions about sexual conduct other than that just between men. Perhaps you should read it.LINK

Why? It might as well just ask if you've had sex since 1977. How and with who or what is utterly moot given all the potential combinations of vectors, venues and genders that STD's use to spread.

Whether someone is homosexual is a ridiculous notion on which to base such a ruling not only is it morally indefensible it's scientifically and medically indefensible. The real issue truly is the loophole in the Charter a ruling on such a basis has created. Given how it's been based on the pretext of such blind unreasoning fear does not bode well for a society that is as infected with as much fear as our's.

[nicky10013]

As I have pointed out, there is a window between infection and when that infection will show up on a test, months and in some cases years.

Nope:

The window period is the time from infection until a test can detect any change. The average window period with HIV-1 antibody tests is 25 days for subtype B. Antigen testing cuts the window period to approximately 16 days and NAT (Nucleic Acid Testing) further reduces this period to 12 days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_test

Edited September 11, 2010 by nicky10013

[Wilber]

Why? It might as well just ask if you've had sex since 1977. How and with who or what is utterly moot given all the potential combinations of vectors, venues and genders that STD's use to spread.

Whether someone is homosexual is a ridiculous notion on which to base such a ruling not only is it morally indefensible it's scientifically and medically indefensible. The real issue truly is the loophole in the Charter a ruling on such a basis has created. Given how it's been based on the pretext of such blind unreasoning fear does not bode well for a society that is as infected with as much fear as our's.

Perhaps we should allow donations from everyone then give each recipient the complete history of the available donations and let them decide who's blood they will accept. Unless of course they are in no shape to make that choice. Or do you believe the right to infect outweighs the right not to be?

This has bugger all to do with the charter. Whether the judge disagrees with the way CBS screens donors or not doesn't matter but if you want to talk about rights, no one has the right to impose their blood on someone else. CBS could just as easily take donations from everyone then flush the ones they didn't want. It would cost the system a lot more but so what, no ones feelings would be hurt.

If CBS could find a way to be more inclusive to gay men that would be good (I'm sure they could use more donors) but it would have to be according to their rules which might be different from other parts of society. The safety of the recipients must come first even if it results in a certain amount of overkill.

[nicky10013]

Perhaps we should allow donations from everyone then give each recipient the complete history of the available donations and let them decide who's blood they will accept. Unless of course they are in no shape to make that choice. Or do you believe the right to infect outweighs the right not to be?

This has bugger all to do with the charter. Whether the judge disagrees with the way CBS screens donors or not doesn't matter but if you want to talk about rights, no one has the right to impose their blood on someone else. CBS could just as easily take donations from everyone then flush the ones they didn't want. It would cost the system a lot more but so what, no ones feelings would be hurt.

If CBS could find a way to be more inclusive to gay men that would be good (I'm sure they could use more donors) but it would have to be according to their rules which might be different from other parts of society. The safety of the recipients must come first even if it results in a certain amount of overkill.

No one is arguing that all people should be allowed to donate. I explained it before, you're ignoring it which is being disingenuous at best.

[capricorn]

The safety of the recipients must come first even if it results in a certain amount of overkill.

Some 22 countries ban men who have sex with other men from donating to their blood bank and other countries have various restrictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy#European_Union

The ban is a widely accepted measure to minimize the risks for blood recipients. I challenge anyone who opposes the ban to answer this question. If you needed an urgent blood transfusion, would you accept one or more blood transfusions you knew was donated by men known to have had oral and/or anal sex with one or multiple male sex partners?

[nicky10013]

Some 22 countries ban men who have sex with other men from donating to their blood bank and other countries have various restrictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy#European_Union

The ban is a widely accepted measure to minimize the risks for blood recipients. I challenge anyone who opposes the ban to answer this question. If you needed an urgent blood transfusion, would you accept one or more blood transfusions you knew was donated by men known to have had oral and/or anal sex with one or multiple male sex partners?

What's the difference between multiple male partners and just multiple partners?

[bloodyminded]

What's the difference between multiple male partners and just multiple partners?

Perhaps the belief that a woman's anus is somehow cleaner.

[capricorn]

What's the difference between multiple male partners and just multiple partners?

You know darn well what the difference is. Try your bait with someone else.

[nicky10013]

You know darn well what the difference is. Try your bait with someone else.

What bait? It's a perfectly legitimate question. Women are just as capable as men in terms of carrying STIs like HIV.

[capricorn]

Women are just as capable as men in terms of carrying STIs like HIV.

Not to the degree of men having sex with men. If and when the blood collection authorities make such a finding then they might proceed to relevant restrictions.

Care to answer the question I asked previously? If you needed an urgent blood transfusion, would you accept one or more blood transfusions you knew was donated by men known to have had oral and/or anal sex with one or multiple male sex partners?

[Argus]

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.

There's nothing controversial about it and it's not a loophole. The Charter was intended to govern government treatment of individuals, not how individuals or private enterprises treated each other.

[Argus]

Wow, talk about stereotypes here. Any actual statistics behind this?

Don't be a child. All men basically sluts. If it weren't for the fact women mostly weren't we'd never get anything done.

[Argus]

What bait? It's a perfectly legitimate question. Women are just as capable as men in terms of carrying STIs like HIV.

Perhaps but they rarely have sex with men by the train-load.