Canadian Blood Services ban

[nicky10013]

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?

You're not understanding the point here. I'm not saying that they shouldn't restrict blood donors. They should base it on personal activity and not what group they belong to.

Beyond that, you're also simply not getting the fact that they test ALL blood, so what difference does it make anyway? Someone claimed here that you won't test positive for HIV for years. Now that we know that's crap, what's the impediment towards letting anyone donate? If you've never donated before, you wouldn't know that blood goes through multiple checks. Even at the end of the process before you actually give, if you're too shy to actually say gee, I've had anal sex with multiple partners, they give you two barcodes, one in a red box and one in a green box. IF you were too squeamish to tell the truth, you can take the one from the red box and once it's scanned the blood is automatically destroyed. That's before the blood is even tested. No matter who they let donate, it's about as safe a process that can be implemented.

Are you afraid that their gay juice will make you gay?

[capricorn]

Are you afraid that their gay juice will make you gay?

This is exactly what I would expect from a troll. Of course, trolls wouldn't have the courage to answer the very plain question I asked. 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]

This is exactly what I would expect from a troll. Of course, trolls wouldn't have the courage to answer the very plain question I asked. 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?

It's a legitimate question. There really are no safety fears here. I explained the multiple steps in the safety process, yet there are still questions. Obviously there is still a stigma around gay people and their activities which is based on pure bullshit. I'd suspect the troll would be closer to someone trying to box someone in with an illegitimate question merely to make them look bad as surely that person would quote the reply out of context and claim that he himself doesn't support his own initiative.

For the record:

I would accept it as much as I would from a person in a straight relationship that admits to the same type of unprotected activities.

[capricorn]

For the record:

I would accept it as much as I would from a person in a straight relationship that admits to the same type of unprotected activities.

Sure you would.

[nicky10013]

Sure you would.

Yikes, you're dense.

[capricorn]

Yikes, you're dense.

But my chances of avoiding a debilitating disease are better than yours.

[nicky10013]

But my chances of avoiding a debilitating disease are better than yours.

You'd think that; probably because your reading comprehension skills are clearly lacking.

[Wilber]

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.

This court ruling concerned a man who lied on the questionnaire. A man who then told CBS that he lied because he disagreed with their policy then invoked the Charter in order to excuse that lie. Should we give a let to anyone who lies on any of the questions or should we not allow CBS to ask any questions at all to prospective donors?

I'm not ignoring anything. It is CBS's job to safeguard the blood supply. Whether you or I agree on how they do it is beside the point. It's neither their mandate or their responsibility to be fair.

[eyeball]

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?

No, I don't see any reason whatsoever why everyone shouldn't be treated and tested the same way given there is no moral or medical reason not to.

This has bugger all to do with the charter.

I'd rather the Supreme Court of Canada decide that.

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.

The point still stands that women and straight men can be just as infected in precisely the same way gay men are, in what can only be significantly bigger numbers. The reason for circumventing the Charter in this case, is to allow a corporation to treat people differently according to who they are not how they act, which is in any and every case the real cause of infection no matter who you are. I think the threat to public health not to mention the many other sectors corporations operate in could be even greater than the risk of contracting AIDS from a blood transfusion.

Edited September 12, 2010 by eyeball

[nicky10013]

This court ruling concerned a man who lied on the questionnaire. A man who then told CBS that he lied because he disagreed with their policy then invoked the Charter in order to excuse that lie. Should we give a let to anyone who lies on any of the questions or should we not allow CBS to ask any questions at all to prospective donors?

I'm not ignoring anything. It is CBS's job to safeguard the blood supply. Whether you or I agree on how they do it is beside the point. It's neither their mandate or their responsibility to be fair.

Ah, so now it's not because he's gay, it's because he lied.

[Wilber]

Ah, so now it's not because he's gay, it's because he lied.

Yes, the reason he was forced to pay CBS ten grand is because he lied. Whether you agree with the questions or not, they all have to be answered truthfully by everyone no matter what or who they are. The judge's decision was correct.

[Wilber]

No, I don't see any reason whatsoever why everyone shouldn't be treated and tested the same way given there is no moral or medical reason not to.

So you think that CBS should be forced to take donations from everyone no matter what the risk just to be fair to them. The cost of taking all those donations which might have to be destroyed and the risk that some of them might present if they got past screening is of no importance to you compared to offending someone by not allowing them to donate. Got it.

To base something like this on morality is idiotic and the medical argument is debatable.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

The point still stands that women and straight men can be just as infected in precisely the same way gay men are, in what can only be significantly bigger numbers. The reason for circumventing the Charter in this case, is to allow a corporation to treat people differently according to who they are not how they act, which is in any and every case the real cause of infection no matter who you are. I think the threat to public health not to mention the many other sectors corporations operate in could be even greater than the risk of contracting AIDS from a blood transfusion.

You are entitled to your opinion but not responsible for the consequences that might arise from it being implemented. I wonder if it would remain the same if you were.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Wilber

[msdogfood]

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.

ok what about times when private enterprises care for people

Is your only option tort litigation?.

[nicky10013]

You are entitled to your opinion but not responsible for the consequences that might arise from it being implemented. I wonder if it would remain the same if you were.

I still fail to see what consequences there could be when every blood donation is tested for pretty much every STI.

[Wilber]

I still fail to see what consequences there could be when every blood donation is tested for pretty much every STI.

If they didn't use pre screening and relied solely on testing the more infected batches they would have to deal with. Simple arithmatic tells you there will be a greater chance of a contaminated batch reaching a patient. Add to that, the increased number of personel required and cost of taking donations that will fail tests because they didn't screen out those most likely to impose a risk, perhaps you would like to assume the added responsibility and cost yourself.

When will you understand that this is not about the rights of donors? It is about the most efficient and safest way to provide blood to those who need it to survive. Everything else is secondary. If you want to give everyone the right to donate no questions asked, perhaps we should also make it madatory that everyone be required to donate.

[nicky10013]

When will you understand that this is not about the rights of donors? It is about the most efficient and safest way to provide blood to those who need it to survive. Everything else is secondary. If you want to give everyone the right to donate no questions asked, perhaps we should also make it madatory that everyone be required to donate.

Do you even bother to read anything anyone has to say that is opposed to your way of thinking? I've said multiple times that I agree donor's don't have rights, yet, every single response of yours seems to ignore that fact. Perhaps you should go back and read my responses all the way through. When you have, then we can come back and actually discuss this.

[bush_cheney2004]

If they didn't use pre screening and relied solely on testing the more infected batches they would have to deal with. Simple arithmatic tells you there will be a greater chance of a contaminated batch reaching a patient....

Thank you for taking the time to spell out what should be obvious. I was beginning to wonder that your point had been lost in all the anal excitement.

[Wilber]

Do you even bother to read anything anyone has to say that is opposed to your way of thinking? I've said multiple times that I agree donor's don't have rights, yet, every single response of yours seems to ignore that fact. Perhaps you should go back and read my responses all the way through. When you have, then we can come back and actually discuss this.

You keep saying that they have no rights then maintain only testing need be used to screen donations which really means you believe that everyone should have the right to donate.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Wilber

[nicky10013]

You keep saying that they have no rights then maintain only testing need be used to screen donations which really means you believe that everyone should have the right to donate.

No, I said that they instead of asking whether men have had sex with other men, they should just get to the point and ask everyone whether they've had unprotected anal sex. I've said this MULITPLE times.

[eyeball]

If they didn't use pre screening and relied solely on testing the more infected batches they would have to deal with.

Have you had sex since 1977 is the only question that needs to be asked. Everything else is a bunch of hooey.

When will you understand that this is not about the rights of donors?

When it's been proven that only a certain type of people can get or pass on HIV or any of the other diseases you've mentioned.

[Smallc]

No, I said that they instead of asking whether men have had sex with other men, they should just get to the point and ask everyone whether they've had unprotected anal sex.

Precisely. Being gay isn't the risk factor, having unprotected anal sex is.

[Wilber]

No, I said that they instead of asking whether men have had sex with other men, they should just get to the point and ask everyone whether they've had unprotected anal sex. I've said this MULITPLE times.

I still fail to see what consequences there could be when every blood donation is tested for pretty much every STI.

Maybe they should ask that question but I don't make the rules and am not responsible for the results so I don't tell them what questions to ask. There are a lot of people who would like to donate but are excluded for one reason or another, some of which seem quite arbitrary. I'm one of them but I accept it because it is not my ass that is in a sling if it goes wrong.

[msdogfood]

ok what about times when private enterprises care for people

Is your only option tort litigation?.

Will someone answer this for me thanks!!.

Edited September 14, 2010 by msdogfood

[Bonam]

“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.”

That really is all that needs to be said on this subject. Everything else is hogwash.