Blood Board Bigotry

by sanders Fri Aug 12, 2005 00:49

perhaps gay men could start a blood bank of their own, just for gay men.

by Cathal Tue Nov 23, 2004 17:24

Of course they test donated blood but the purpose of the questions they take you through before you give blood is to screen out certain known risks at the outset.

Nobody asks "are you gay?" - they ask you about your sexual history and if you are a man who has had sex with another man (who has probably also had sex with men other than you), then the fact is that you have a higher risk of exposure to HIV . Statistically, the risk of a man who has never had sex with another man or with a prostitute or used intravenous drugs becoming infected with HIV is miniscule.

They're not judging or discriminating against gay men, they're trying to reduce the risk of infections like HIV and Hepatitis B entering the blood supply, just as they screen out other known risk factors before donation. It's to do with sexual behaviour rather than sexual orientation so I think UCC LGB Soc is wasting its time complaining to the Equality Authority - and anyway blood donation is not a "good" or "service" so it doesn't fall within the scope of equality legislation.

Given the amount of controversy they've generated in the past few years over infected blood products I don't think you can blame the IBTS for being paranoid about safety.

by Ray Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:22

Yeah, I presume British donors can still give blood in the UK, but not here.

"do they and can they test people for everything before they donate blood?"

No, the only test they perform before you give blood is for your iron levels, to make sure you're healthy enough to donate. I don't know what testing they carry out on the blood they collect. It would probably be prohibitively expensive to test for everything, as well as very time-consuming (blood has a limited shelflife).

by pc Mon Nov 22, 2004 21:50

"Anyone has spent more than a year in the UK since 1980 is banned from donating for life" in ireland I presume you mean, they still give blood in the UK then its good enough for them. question? do they and can they test people for everything before they donate blood?

by Friend of LGB Society Mon Nov 22, 2004 02:52

Noboby ever said any thing about boycotting the blood transfusion service. every email i recieved about this protest strongly urged me to give blood but at the same time to support the UCC'c LGB Society's petition and protest.

I have two gay friends who are in a long term monogamous relationship for the last year and a half. They have been tested and are completely faithful to each other. They can never give blood.

I have tons of straight friends who are basically slags. Couple of one night stands a week. They have never been IN a STD clinic. They can give blood.

This is discrimination based souly on sexuality.

When somebody goes to a different country they are exposed to that country's viruses and diseases, and they should be excluded from giving blood if there is a risk involved.

I can't think of an STD or STI that is specific to homosexuals. Every sexually active person is exposed to the same infections.

It's BLATANT discrinimation. And again it's not that the UCC LGB Society wants people to boycott, they want to give blood themselves.
They should be welcome for their blood too.

Pesonally i think they should just discriminate against "loose" peolpe no matter what their sexuality.

by Ray Wed Nov 17, 2004 09:39

Anyone has spent more than a year in the UK since 1980 is banned from donating for life. Only a tiny proportion of the people affected will have a condition (vCJD in this case, I think) that would make their blood dangerous, just as only a tiny proportion of gay men will have HIV. Since blood is always in short supply, the IBTS would obviously like to take blood from as many people as possible. But they have to be extremely cautious.

by pc Tue Nov 16, 2004 19:01

it not stupid or a waste of time at all, its a 20 year old archaic rule...

everyone who quoted a reason why they or someone they know can't give blood were a given a specific reason why not theres no specific reason why gay men(women too?) can't give blood

its just one of the numerous hangovers left im sure they are battling away on all the other issues too...

by Cork student Tue Nov 16, 2004 17:31

When you volunteer to give blood they ask you tons of questions, some of which are quite intrusive - but they're not concerned about whether or not you're gay, just about any risky practices you may have indulged in at any stage in your life - not just sexual practices, but intravenous drug use, sex with a prostitute, etc, basically anything that has a higher statistical risk of exposing you to infections such as HIV, Hepatitis B and a variety of sexually transmitted infections.

Five years ago my father had cancer and needed a hell of a lot of blood and blood products - he's alive and well today thanks to those people who took the time and trouble to donate blood and platelets.

I am a regular donor but due to the fact that I spent the summer in working in the US I can't donate for the moment due to the prevalence of West Nile Virus there. That's not discrimination against students - it's just a sensible precaution. My English-born partner (a vegetarian) can't give blood for reasons to do with vCJD - this isn't racism or Anglophobia or discrimination against vegetarians (she may have unknowingly eaten meat by-products) - it's another sensible precaution aimed at reducing the risk of contamination of the blood supply.

You don't have a right to give blood - you volunteer to do it and for a variety of reasons in the interests of the safety of the blood supply, the IBTS may not take the blood you offer to donate. It's not personal. It's not an equality issue.

If you can't give blood temporarily or permanently because you have had homosexual sex, had a tattoo, used intravenous drugs, been to Thailand or whatever, the solution is to encourage other people to donate. Just remember that everyone can get blood - if you get cancer or are injured in a car crash you'll be glad that someone saw beyond petty "equality issues" and gave the blood that could save your life.

Shame on you UCC LGB Society and all of you who boycott the UCC clinic.

by Paul McAndrew Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:38 ardhanishvara at yahoo dot co dot uk

*** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ***
http://bb.ucc.ie/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s... etc

College Group Protests Gay Blood Ban

Cork, November 15th. College students will this week begin staging a three day peaceful protest when the Blood Transfusion Service comes to UCC for their blood drive. Every year when the BTS visits UCC, there is a protest to highlight the fact that gay men are banned from giving blood under a draconian measure first put in place 20 years ago.

This blood ban stems from an emergency policy at the height of the AIDS panic around 1985 when the FDA in America imposed a blanket ban on gay men giving blood. At the time, procedures for screening HIV looked for antibodies for the virus, which could take weeks or months to develop.

Policymakers had worried that during this window HIV tainted blood could go through the screening process undetected. Today, there are superior testing procedures so that the window from infection to detection has been cut to 5days.

Speaking at the start of this protest UCC LGB Society Auditor Mike Waldron commented. " While modern testing procedures have increased in sophistication and thoroughness, the gay blood ban is still in effect. In light of this we feel that the ban is nothing but discrimination, arrogantly veiled as protecting the public. As a result of this we are sending written complaints to the IBTS, the Minister of Health and the Equality Authority"

"The issue we have is that the gay ban is based on a persons status and not the acts that may have exposed them to the risk. While risky acts performed by heterosexuals will incur a temporary ban, a gay man will be banned indefinitely for the same acts. Double standards are at play and the reasons the IBTS gives for this are not in touch with modern day studies." said Waldron

Highlighting the stark contrast between the rights of a gay couple and straight couple, Campaigns Officer Sonya Donnelly stated: "Monogamous gay couples in long-term stable relationships, who are tested regularly and have a history of safe sex are barred from donating blood forever. Under the same policy a single heterosexual female who can have many partners and who doesn't practice safe sex will not receive the same lifetime ban. We are asking the IBTS to re-examine their policy and allow healthy and safe people to donate. "

In America in 2002 an FDA vote to overturn the lifetime ban on gay men lost out by one vote: 7-6. The main opposition coming from the American Red Cross who some groups such as the Liberty Foundation claim were doing it for financial and PR reasons. At a meeting of the FDA Blood Products Advisory Committee in September 2000 the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) and America's Blood Centers (ABC) who together collect more than half the blood in America, asked for the lifetime ban to be lifted.

Auditor Waldon added "Whenever this is brought up on the agenda the IBTS fob it off by pointing to World Health Organisations Reports or talk about most developed countries keeping the ban, but the fact is that the IBTS need to start moving with the times and accept that there is no need to ban gay men for life to maintain the same quality of blood. Other developed countries are changing their attitudes and so should Ireland. "

Speaking about interacting with the IBTS, Campaigns Officer Donnelly stated "We think with the new additions to the board of the IBTS a roundtable discussion between them and all the gay welfare groups would be a progressive step for all. Gay blood is safe blood and gay people are healthy people, this must be recognized."

by Barry Mon Nov 15, 2004 21:09

Absolutely. Last I heard the gays werent a seperate race of people either. Surely there are more productive protests these people could engage in. The way relatives of those unfortunate haemophiliacs were treated for example.

Homo-phobic assaults, better medical care for AIDS sufferers etc are worthwhile gay causes to protest about. This is just stupid

by Pat Quirke Mon Nov 15, 2004 18:55

To protest against the IBTS will not affect them, it will however affect the lives of the people who require that blood.

There are far better causes than this one, this is just plain dangerous and stupid.

by Ray Mon Nov 15, 2004 16:13

I couldn't give blood for a year after getting tattooed, even though the needles were new and sterile, and anyone who has spent a year in the UK since 1980 is also banned.
Given the problems the IBTS has had in recent years, you can hardly fault them for being over-cautious, and its not like they are the last remaining bastion of homophobia in Irish society...