• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Woah, Gays can't give blood?

todiefor

TRIBE Promoter
well, think about it. if a dude sticks his dingaling in a poop shoot, of course his blood will get a little dirty.

hot daym, snap, zing.

kidding.
 

Sal De Ban

TRIBE Member
well if there's a shortage of blood donations, it'll be interesting to hear the response.

i think it would be worse if they were refusing blood TO homosexuals who need it...that would be quite a step backwards.
 

Eclectic

TRIBE Member
It's not only gays though as far as I know.

I seem to remember being asked if I've participated in hetro anal last time I gave blood...
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Ho||yw0oD

TRIBE Member
It is because they don't want AIDS-tainted blood. And since AIDS is (exclusively) a homo disease then banning homos from donating blood seems like the only logical policy to have.
 

kaniz

TRIBE Member
The thing I don't really get : Shouldn't they be screening the blood for STDs prior to giving it to a recipient?

I get that they want to protect recipients against getting HIV. But you'd think they would be screening the blood for virus/STDs in the first place. This ban seems to be based more in fear than in science/facts.

Back in the late 70s/80s - this is something I could understand. HIV/AIDS was new, no one really knew what it was, how it was spread, but just that it seemed to be targeting gay communities.

Now though, we have a better understanding of it - and you'd think that science would start trumping fear.

If you want to donate blood, make it mandatory to do a full STD test - including HIV, and use one of the tests that can do early detection - checking for viral load in the blood in addition to (or instead of) testing for the antibodies.

People are most infectious for HIV after their initial exposure - and usually before the common STD tests will come back as positive. But, if they test for a viral load and not just the antibodies, wouldn't that reduce the risk of donating tainted blood significantly? And shouldn't they be doing this in the first place.
 

derek

TRIBE Member
^^^^

@ hollywood

the what?

might want to check your stats on the spread of HIV. not sure where you're getting it's 'exclusively' a homo disease. that rumour was dismissed a long time ago.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

acheron

TRIBE Member
Without knowing the process involved in maintaining or processing the blood supply, I think the reasoning behind this is that, after the tainted blood scandal a while back, our blood supply system has been forced to take as much caution as possible by completely eliminating high risk groups from donating. Given that homosexual men are at best 10% of the population (less than that if you consider how many of those consider themselves gay or are even sexually active and acknowledge their sexuality), then eliminate the other high risk groups they exclude...:

- under 17
- in poor health generally
- never donated before 61st birthday
- between 67 and 71 and haven't donated in past two years
- under 110lbs
- gave blood <56 days ago
- meet iron requirements (tested at clinic)
- had dental treatment 1-3 days before (depending on procedure)
- had an ear or body piercing or tattoo in the last six months
- not fully recovered from cold or flu
- lived in certain regions of Africa; received blood transfusions there, had sex with someone who lives there
- possible exposure to CJD or vCJD
- people who have taken money or drugs for sex since 1977
- men who have had sex with men since 1977
- intravenous drug use or use of illegal street drugs
- diabetic
- false positive test results
- chronic fatigue syndrome
- pregnant or breastfeeding
- <six weeks since miscarriage or abortion
- recent major surgery
- recent vaccinations

All of these result in either a temporary or permanent deferral from donating due to various risks involved. As you can see a lot of them are groups that we might *think* are low risk but from a scientific/statistical viewpoint they present too high a risk to the blood supply to accept.

As the judge said the supposed violation of rights of gay men is outweighed by the need for security of the blood supply to those who depend on it for their lives. A gay man is temporarily inconvenienced or embarassed by their inability to donate, but someone who depends on blood products to live needs only to be infected once from a transfusion to have their lives altered forever in a negative way.
 

nikki.classics

TRIBE Member
I only found out teh gays couldn't donate a few months ago when my friend told me about this. Couldn't believe it! They test/screen all the blood they receive for HIV, so why can't they let gays donate? Are they saying their testing might not be perfect? That makes me a little worried. OR perhaps it's just the superAIDS that gays have might not be identified by the testing?

Question: What about women who have had sex with a man who has had sex with a man since 1977?
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Dirty Girl

TRIBE Member
1. no testing is perfect. hello false positive and false negative.
2. we should make the homosexuals wear little pink stars on their coats at all times, so we know to stay away from them and their blood.
 

Hi i'm God

TRIBE Member
This has always been the case so not new.

Also health Canada is still getting over the tainted blood issues from years ago so they are probably extra paranoid.

oh beat by Acheron.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Teflon

TRIBE Member
They are very, very discrete at the donor clinic.

It's not like they scream out "GET OUT OF HERE HOMO".

I went with a friend who was told he could not give, in private. They have individual meeting rooms where you are interviewed in private. They even have little radios playing nearby so that no one can hear you speaking to the nurse.

You are even given the option to tell them not to use your blood. It's done anonymously by selecting a bar code sticker in private.

I think they are doing just about everything they can to secure the blood supply and doing it in the most polite way.

The biggest problem is not enough people donate.
 

Ho||yw0oD

TRIBE Member
2. we should make the homosexuals wear little pink stars on their coats at all times, so we know to stay away from them and their blood.
That'd be useful. I heard it is possible to catch the gay. But is it just sexually transmittable through butt and mouth? Or, can it also be airborne? If so, they should also have to wear pink surgical masks.
 

NemIsis

TRIBE Member
Without knowing the process involved in maintaining or processing the blood supply, I think the reasoning behind this is that, after the tainted blood scandal a while back, our blood supply system has been forced to take as much caution as possible by completely eliminating high risk groups from donating. Given that homosexual men are at best 10% of the population (less than that if you consider how many of those consider themselves gay or are even sexually active and acknowledge their sexuality), then eliminate the other high risk groups they exclude...:

- under 17
- in poor health generally
- never donated before 61st birthday
- between 67 and 71 and haven't donated in past two years
- under 110lbs
- gave blood <56 days ago
- meet iron requirements (tested at clinic)
- had dental treatment 1-3 days before (depending on procedure)
- had an ear or body piercing or tattoo in the last six months
- not fully recovered from cold or flu
- lived in certain regions of Africa; received blood transfusions there, had sex with someone who lives there
- possible exposure to CJD or vCJD
- people who have taken money or drugs for sex since 1977
- men who have had sex with men since 1977
- intravenous drug use or use of illegal street drugs
- diabetic
- false positive test results
- chronic fatigue syndrome
- pregnant or breastfeeding
- <six weeks since miscarriage or abortion
- recent major surgery
- recent vaccinations

All of these result in either a temporary or permanent deferral from donating due to various risks involved. As you can see a lot of them are groups that we might *think* are low risk but from a scientific/statistical viewpoint they present too high a risk to the blood supply to accept.

As the judge said the supposed violation of rights of gay men is outweighed by the need for security of the blood supply to those who depend on it for their lives. A gay man is temporarily inconvenienced or embarassed by their inability to donate, but someone who depends on blood products to live needs only to be infected once from a transfusion to have their lives altered forever in a negative way.
*Nod*
Add - very close family history of severe epilepsy and had one seizure as a child. I'm not allowed to, according to my family doctor. The danger is for me not for others. A severe blood loss could trigger a seizure.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top