Are donating tainted blood and “trangendered” people the next “gay rights?”

[Butterfly]

Are donating tainted blood and "trangendered" people the next "gay rights?"
By Alphonse de Valk
30 June, 2010


http://catholicinsight.com/online/political/homosexuality/article_1008.shtml


The "gay" blood controversy goes hand in hand with other attempts to broaden the "GLBT" assault on society, for example, to achieve recognition for "transgendered" people.

---snip----

In February 2009, the gay, lesbian and bi-sexual (GLB) community in Canada issued a formal complaint against Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. It claimed that its "human rights" are being denied. This time it argued not for a moral right to equality, but to "equitable levels of programming support, based on needs when compared with programming supports for the general population and "other minority populations" [in Canada]. The "GLB" population is not included  as a priority population and, therefore, receives no dedicated funding "when addressing those health issues where GLB communities are disproportionately affected." Thus today they want to be recognized as a priority minority population (based on the false argument that "transgendered" are born that way).

[Janet_Girl]

go figure it is from a Catholic media.     well duh.

[TheAetherealMeadow]

The grocery list above indicates again that the "gay" community is determined to present behavioural issues as genetic ones, i.e., that they are born that way. In reality, if they abandoned their wretched lifestyle, none of the above health consequences would occur.

Maybe if the "Catholic" (see, I can use scare quotes too!) community would stop their crusade of hatred then LGBT people wouldn't have as many "behavioral issues". It really angers me how they somehow think that our high suicide and disease rate is somehow out fault.

[Princess Rachel]

currently in the UK gay men, bisexual men who have ever had sex with a man and women who have ever had sex with a bisexual man who has ever had sex with a man are currently not allowed to donate blood, it's an illegal move and one that's going to be reviewed, but I fear that ignorance and fear are gripping the UK like a grippy thing and they might expand their rules to cover other minority groups

[ToriJo]

Yep, apparently God can't handle his own battles, but needs His followers to go after people and keep them down, lest the LGBT people actually have rights.  I can't imagine how people can say they believe in a God with that little power.  I say this as a Christian (but I don't think God has a problem with love, unlike some of my fellow Christians).

I could sleep with 20 prostitutes, wait 12 months, and then donate blood.  But if I and a male partner were both virgins and then had sex, only once and never again with anyone in the remainder of our lives, we couldn't donate blood ever in the US - not even 50 years from now.  How does this make blood safer?  It's absurd and has no relationship to risk.  It's become political.  If a guy slept with another guy in 1977, and never had sex since, I don't see how his blood is more dangerous than mine or anyone else's.  It is purely politically motivated, or the rules would be concerned with risky behavior, not, essentially, sexual identity.

It's unfortunate we discriminate in this way.  It just furthers the myth that gays are diseased (and sounds a lot like other prejudices from the past, such as "Jews are disease carriers" and "Negros are disease carriers").

And, my pet peeve: if people were *really* concerned about AIDS, perhaps they wouldn't be trying to de-fund something like Planned Parenthood...testing for STDs and providing education sounds a lot more effective at limiting the spread of AIDS than banning gays from saving lives by donating blood.  If we were as a country really concerned, we'd make sure GLBT people didn't face employment and health care access struggles simply because of discrimination - perhaps less people would be forced to turn to risky behaviors just to put food on their tables (oh, and an actual security net might not be bad, either, as in recognizing that sometimes being poor isn't a moral failure or a sign of freeloading).  As one of my pastors has said, "Your heart is often where your wallet is."  The USA's wallet, unfortunately, has been about as far away from AIDS prevention as it can get.  We're literally more concerned with making sure GE gets tax breaks than preventing the spread of AIDS.  That's sick, and THAT is what needs a cure.

ARGH!  There, I said my speech for the day.  If I wanted to see people hurt (I don't, not even the evil people), I'd like to see some of these bigots in a hospital, being told that they need blood to live, but then being told that unfortunately the only donor is a gay man - and because of the FDA, this person is prohibited from saving the life.  At least part of me would like to be there to see that.  I just wish that non-bigots didn't have to deal with the occasional blood shortages because of stupid policies like this.

[Arch]

currently in the UK gay men, bisexual men who have ever had sex with a man and women who have ever had sex with a bisexual man who has ever had sex with a man are currently not allowed to donate blood, it's an illegal move and one that's going to be reviewed, but I fear that ignorance and fear are gripping the UK like a grippy thing and they might expand their rules to cover other minority groups

I'm in the US. While I was living as a female, I had sex a few times with a practicing bisexual male back around 1981. I have always tested negative for HIV. Twenty-five years later, I still couldn't give blood unless I lied.

[Padma]

I know that in the UK, the blood service are still coming to terms with just how much more prevalent Hepatitis C is than anyone expected, and that for a long time this wasn't tested for when collecting blood (because they didn't have a reliable test). This isn't just about HIV, it's also about concern for what other sexually transmissable diseases are not on the radar yet.

It pisses me off that they make a blanket decision based on statistical percentages, but gay men are statistically most likely to be carrying sexually transmissable diseases (if you take "gay men" as a homogeneous group, which is absurd). What I'd hope for is that they'd just test all blood more thoroughly instead of making ridiculous assumptions based on sexual orientation.

[Cindy]

Since I'm in the blood trade, but not exactly transfusion, I'll add a comment.

The testing of blood product is very extensive and very sensitive. But the Blood Transfusion Services around the world got clobbered by law suit after suit for not detecting things they didn't know existed. And yes many of the cases were very tragic. In Australia you cannot donate blood if you have eaten beef in the UK  10 years ago (or about that), just in case you pass on 'mad cow disease'.

Blocking out groups of 'at risk' people has cut down on the number of positive samples for HIV etc. That is why it is done from a science point of view.  The religious Taliban use such stuff for their own evil interpretations.  But from a science point of view and monetary view it is not discrimination, it is just a means of cutting down on the number of reject transfusions and keeping work loads manageable.

Cindy,

Maybe that's what's wrong I've got mad bitch disease, Mmmm

[ToriJo]

Blocking out groups of 'at risk' people has cut down on the number of positive samples for HIV etc. That is why it is done from a science point of view.  The religious Taliban use such stuff for their own evil interpretations.  But from a science point of view and monetary view it is not discrimination, it is just a means of cutting down on the number of reject transfusions and keeping work loads manageable.

(disclaimer - I can only speak about US rules)

Certainly for AIDS, and likely other conditions, I disagree because the thing that makes AIDS common is unprotected sex with partners of unknown status - not sexual orientation.  That's what they should be asking about, as *that* is the risk.  It's one of the things we've learned since the early 80s.  But revising the blood donation standards to match our scientific knowledge is a political hot-potato now, so it's easier to just leave things as they are.

They could have easily eliminated donations from those who are originally from Swaziland - a country where 1 of 4 living people have AIDS.  They didn't - there is no rule against someone from Swaziland donating.

Yes, the prejudice had the side-effect of reducing positives.  But it would reduce it even more if it was focused on the right category: unsafe sex rather than gay sex.

Right now, if I was a female and had sex thousands of times with a man who was HIV positive, as long as I waited one year, I could donate.  That isn't something that is scientifically based, it's just plain dumb.

Even the countries that are excluded on the basis of AIDS are wrong.  For instance, Swaziland citizens - where there is the highest AIDS prevalence in the world is not excluded from donation, yet other countries with lower AIDS prevalence are excluded from donation (due to AIDS, not other things such as Malaria or "mad cow").  That's also dumb and unscientific.  We actually don't ask about having sex with AIDS-positive people, but we ask about gay sex from the 1970s.

The current rules - because they focus on sexual orientation - also create a condition where the closeted gay man is encouraged to lie, for fear (reasonable or not) of being "outed".  That's not good either - asking questions that are less threatening are more likely to get accurate answers ("Have you had sex with new partners, male or female, in the last X amount of time?" as well as "Have you ever had sex with someone who tested positive for AIDS either before you had sex or within X amount of time since you last had sex?"  Neither of these is currently asked).

Yes, there's overlap between the groups that are excluded and the groups *really* that are more likely to have AIDS.  But it would be best if they focused on the groups that really are more likely to have AIDS, not the groups that aren't.

I do agree that depending on blood testing to detect disease is not wise - tests sometimes have false negatives.  We need to do more than just rely on tests (and too many people see blood donation as a free AIDS test - another problem that we have today).

[tekla]

We need to do more than just rely on tests

Consult the Oracle?  Read tea leaves?  Pray?