Gay Son prevented from donating blood to his dying Mother

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2010 10:33 PM GMT
    icon_sad.gificon_sad.gifhttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/04/gay-son-prevented-from-donating-blood-to-dying-mother/

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2010 11:06 PM GMT
    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/04/gay-son-prevented-from-donating-blood-to-dying-mother/

    I have type O(-) blood, which is rarest and more useful type... I used to donate blood whenever possible in high school, and would love to continue... But I am not going to lie to do so. Of course I am safe, and not overly promiscuous....

    Annoyed at this law, they do test all blood for HIV. But it is possible to transmit HIV in the early stages... before a test would show it. I don't really consider this law discriminatory... But in the case of the son/mother, I think it should have been up to the mother if she would trust his blood - not the hospital.

    Le sigh.
  • HereNBoston

    Posts: 221

    Jan 04, 2010 11:20 PM GMT
    kinda funny that this rule hasn't been lifted yet in spite of the fact that one of the fastest growing groups of new HIV infections are african american heterosexual females... but you can't place the same type of regulation on that group because that's racist icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2010 11:21 PM GMT
    HereNBoston saidkinda funny that this rule hasn't been lifted yet in spite of the fact that one of the fastest growing groups of new HIV infections are african american heterosexual females... but you can't place the same type of regulation on that group because that's racist icon_rolleyes.gif


    You mean African heterosexual females? If not, then...damn... crazy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2010 11:23 PM GMT
    I agree. It should have been up to the mother in this case.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 04, 2010 11:44 PM GMT
    This is exactly why I laugh when they have blood drives and hospitals whine when they don't have certain types of blood

    These archaic laws perpetuate fear and continue to discriminate against gay men
    Blood can readily be screened for the AIDS virus now
    There is no longer the excuse where we have to be segregated as less than anylonger
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2010 10:00 AM GMT
    Oh my fucking god. What a fucked up law. US is just as fucked up in the head with their "no gay men donate blood" laws.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2010 10:06 AM GMT
    I remember I was somewhat shocked/dismayed when, after being honest with the nurse who was doing the questioning, he informed me that I wasnt eligible for the blood drive (as being a sexually active gay man) and that my name would go on an ineligible list.

    Most of the reading I've found regarding the ban is out-dated and generally ignorant of most heterosexual people's identical behavior.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2010 10:21 AM GMT
    GQjock saidThis is exactly why I laugh when they have blood drives and hospitals whine when they don't have certain types of blood

    These archaic laws perpetuate fear and continue to discriminate against gay men
    Blood can readily be screened for the AIDS virus now
    There is no longer the excuse where we have to be segregated as less than anylonger


    “When we get to that point when we have the technology that allows us to change, we will change. We want to change—we want those people back,” he said.







    from 2002
    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2002/12/13/blood-drive-policy-called-homophobic-a/
    2008:
    SJSU bans American Red Cross Blood Drives
    http://sometimesdaveywins.blogspot.com/2008/02/sjsu-bans-red-cross-blood-drives-on.html
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 05, 2010 11:59 AM GMT
    Doesn't anyone remember how this was an issue with blood donor centers after 9/11?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2010 11:22 PM GMT
    The original thread started by Metta8 (thread # 775762) was posted a few hours before this one. In it I replied that the hospital staff were right in denying the transfusion of blood to a sick mother, donated by her gay son who had been sexually active. Go to that thread to see what it involves in donating from one who has donated for 32 years.
    In short, I wrote that the reason why the hospital staff refused the transfusion stemmed from the discovery that the disease AIDS, the result of an infection of a HIV virus, was directly linked to homosexuality. It was the result of a research done after a few blood recipients died as a direct result of a transfusion. The real danger of this was the fact that one can be infected with the virus with no symptoms for MANY YEARS before any breakout of the disease occurred.
    But what bothered me about that article was why there was no other supply of the same blood group available at the time. Here in the UK there is a chronic shortage of potential donors. But I don't think it has so much to do with unsuitability to give as apathy or cowardice. Neither would I support the American idea of rewarding the donor with a sum of money. This would attract the wrong kind in trying to donate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2010 11:24 PM GMT
    NotThatOld saidI wrote that the reason why the hospital staff refused the transfusion stemmed from the discovery that the disease AIDS, the result of an infection of a HIV virus, was directly linked to homosexuality.


    WTF?

    0_funny_oh_no_you_didnt.gif


    Aren't you that crazed bible-thumper?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2010 11:34 PM GMT
    play_dead said
    NotThatOld saidI wrote that the reason why the hospital staff refused the transfusion stemmed from the discovery that the disease AIDS, the result of an infection of a HIV virus, was directly linked to homosexuality.


    WTF?



    Aren't you that crazed bible-thumper?


    That question has nothing to do with this topic. Read the post a little more carefully and you will see that I'm dealing here with a SCIENTIFIC TOPIC, not religion. And yes, surprise surprise! I'm a strong believer in science.

    (Edit)

    And I have donated blood for the benefit of others since 1977, and I now hold the Gold Card.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2010 11:53 PM GMT
    NotThatOld saidThe original thread started by Metta8 (thread # 775762) was posted a few hours before this one. In it I replied that the hospital staff were right in denying the transfusion of blood to a sick mother, donated by her gay son who had been sexually active. Go to that thread to see what it involves in donating from one who has donated for 32 years.
    In short, I wrote that the reason why the hospital staff refused the transfusion stemmed from the discovery that the disease AIDS, the result of an infection of a HIV virus, was directly linked to homosexuality. It was the result of a research done after a few blood recipients died as a direct result of a transfusion. The real danger of this was the fact that one can be infected with the virus with no symptoms for MANY YEARS before any breakout of the disease occurred.
    But what bothered me about that article was why there was no other supply of the same blood group available at the time. Here in the UK there is a chronic shortage of potential donors. But I don't think it has so much to do with unsuitability to give as apathy or cowardice. Neither would I support the American idea of rewarding the donor with a sum of money. This would attract the wrong kind in trying to donate.


    Showing symptoms of an HIV infection and being able to prove the existence of the virus with a blood test are two very different things. There are known cases of people who lived more than ten years without showing any symptoms, but the so called "window period" (that's the time between infection and first positive blood test results) is only six months according to current NHS belief. Six months is still a long time, but really not 'years'.
    Also I don't think it's really fair to exclude gay people from the right to donate blood. The virus does NOT distinguish between sexually active persons who are gay or straight. If you really want to be sure, you would have to exclude everyone from giving blood who was sexually active during the last half year. Is that practical?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2010 11:55 PM GMT
    JakeBenson saidOh my fucking god. What a fucked up law. US is just as fucked up in the head with their "no gay men donate blood" laws.


    On this the US and Oz are on very much the same level, because of all the people who got infected via blood transplants during the " Gay Plague era!" Yet it's never be enforced on the dyke's?
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 06, 2010 12:01 AM GMT
    NotThatOld saidThe original thread started by Metta8 (thread # 775762) was posted a few hours before this one. In it I replied that the hospital staff were right in denying the transfusion of blood to a sick mother, donated by her gay son who had been sexually active. Go to that thread to see what it involves in donating from one who has donated for 32 years.
    In short, I wrote that the reason why the hospital staff refused the transfusion stemmed from the discovery that the disease AIDS, the result of an infection of a HIV virus, was directly linked to homosexuality. It was the result of a research done after a few blood recipients died as a direct result of a transfusion. The real danger of this was the fact that one can be infected with the virus with no symptoms for MANY YEARS before any breakout of the disease occurred.
    But what bothered me about that article was why there was no other supply of the same blood group available at the time. Here in the UK there is a chronic shortage of potential donors. But I don't think it has so much to do with unsuitability to give as apathy or cowardice. Neither would I support the American idea of rewarding the donor with a sum of money. This would attract the wrong kind in trying to donate.



    You FAIL to realize and understand that this "scientific" information was based on the only known cases of HIV/AIDS were of homosexual patients and that it was presumed that homosexuals were the only ones susceptible to the virus, all in the early 1980s. Since then, we encounter the same discriminatory policy because anyone can get HIV/AIDS, but somehow US policy deems us as more susceptible to contract it than anyone else.

    http://endblooddonordiscrimination.com/

    http://www.libertyeducationforum.org/downloads/1h_whtpa_pbl00.pdf

    http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a13/News_Room/Press/20090910AD13PR01.aspx
  • DrobUA

    Posts: 1331

    Jan 06, 2010 12:03 AM GMT
    Yea I ran into a problem with this law as well. I didn't know about it until I was donating and I was filling out the form and it asked if I was gay. I was pretty offended that they turned me away. It is a proven fact that you are MUCH more likely to contract the virus if you are african-american but they didn't ask me that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2010 12:03 AM GMT
    JakeBenson saidOh my fucking god. What a fucked up law. US is just as fucked up in the head with their "no gay men donate blood" laws.


    It's the same here in Australia. If you're a man who has sex with another man, you can't give blood. I won't even donate money to the Red Cross now, because if my blood isn't good enough for them then my money certainly isn't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2010 12:25 AM GMT
    thames76 said

    Showing symptoms of an HIV infection and being able to prove the existence of the virus with a blood test are two very different things. There are known cases of people who lived more than ten years without showing any symptoms, but the so called "window period" (that's the time between infection and first positive blood test results) is only six months according to current NHS belief. Six months is still a long time, but really not 'years'.
    Also I don't think it's really fair to exclude gay people from the right to donate blood. The virus does NOT distinguish between sexually active persons who are gay or straight. If you really want to be sure, you would have to exclude everyone from giving blood who was sexually active during the last half year. Is that practical?


    Good point. As I have already said in the other thread, those not eligible to give blood includes:

    Same sex activity - even just once
    Sleeping with prostitutes, even with condoms.
    Accepting sex for money (gigolo)
    Intake of drugs - Heroin, Speed, LSD etc.
    Tattoos, ear piercing
    Having sex with a woman in a Third World Country.
    Having had Hepatitis and other diseases.
    Family record of Jaundice.
    Feeling unwell after a donation.
    (Temporary exclusion including)
    Visiting a Third World Country, South America, some parts of the USA.
    Feeling if a cold or flu is about to come on.
    Visit to a dentist within last seven days (except routine check up)
    Taken medicine with last two weeks, including Asprin.
    Had a blood transfusion within last year.
    Pregnant or breastfeeding.

    And there are other restrictions in addition to those above.
    At every donor session I attend (regular, every four months) a sample is always taken for lab checking for not only HIV positive but for dormant or early signs of any other illness or disorder. No matter how clean I may be, these sample testing is compulsory for every donor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2010 12:33 AM GMT
    Blood - Pearl Jam

    spin me round, roll me over, fuckin' circus
    stab it down, one way needle, pulled so slowly
    drains and spills, soaks the pages, fills their sponges
    it's my blood
    it's my blood
    paint ed big...turn ed into...one of his enemies...
    it's my blood
    it's my blood
    it's my blood
    stab it down, fill the pages, suck my life out
    maker of my enemies...
    take...my...
    fuck...fuck...fuck...fuck...fuck...fuck...
  • pure_motion

    Posts: 156

    Jan 06, 2010 12:33 AM GMT
    I used to donate blood to the Red Cross here in Australia every twelve weeks without fail. After my first sexual encounter with a man I stopped, to avoid that awkward "yep, I'm a practising homo" conversation with the nurse.
    But after been in a monogamous relationship for a year and a half, having always used protection and still getting tested every six months regardless, it's pretty tempting just to lie on the 'gay' bits of the form. But fuck me, it's ridiculous. We really shouldn't have to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2010 12:38 AM GMT
    I was last asked to give at a blood drive about 10 years ago. I said "Fuck no, I'm gay, so, I'm particular about who gets this precious nectar, but I will have some of those delicious cookies and orange juice."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2010 12:57 AM GMT
    That article is pretty disingenuous. It tries to imply that the mother died because the son couldn't donate blood, when in reality she died from the infection. Leaving out the crucial fact as to whether or not they managed to find a match to perform the blood transfusion is just low and deceptive. I hate this kind of journalism.

    Blood shortages exist, but from what I've heard, it mostly effects people trying to get elective surgery. As in someone might have to wait a couple more weeks to get their rhinoplasty or breast implants. They don't advertise this because obviously people would feel less inclined to donate.

    Anyone against this policy should read the NHS' statement about it:
    http://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/current_issues/mhsm100408.html, particularly:
    NHSResearch shows that completely removing the current exclusion on blood donation from men who have sex with men would result in a fivefold increase in the risk of HIV-infected blood entering the blood supply. While changing deferral to one year from the last sexual contact would have a lesser effect, it would still increase this risk by 60%.


    The reality of the matter is that current blood screening methods aren't 100% effective, and people do get infected from blood transfusions. In the end, I have absolutely no problem with erring on the side of caution when it comes to the prevention of HIV.