This is an interesting story...

Gato_Solo

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Homophobic or not?

So is this discrimination? Yes. Is this a reason to be upset? Yes, but not for the reason they say. If the AIDS population is mostly among active, promiscuous, homosexuals, and intravenous drug users, then it's not being homophobic. The safety of the blood supply, which affects us all, should not be compromised...but the flip side is this...they do HIV testing, and are supposed to tie that in with any blood donated, so why is this even on the questionaire?

Enlighten me, oh teeming masses...
 
Id say the question is yes but i dont want anyone who was promiscuous to give me blood since I wont know what they got. as far as the drug thing goes I feel teh same about that too
 
freako104 said:
Id say the question is yes but i dont want anyone who was promiscuous to give me blood since I wont know what they got. as far as the drug thing goes I feel teh same about that too
Click to expand...


Let's go a step further...

Let's say that they may not test all blood because it's expensive (it is), so they have questionaires to help weed out risky donations. How do you feel about that?
 
I would feel the same. I went to give blood and if I remember correctly

there were questions about tattoos,piercings,sexual history,drug use,alcohol use and some others. I feel for something like donating blood it should be available information.



for the record I could not give blood due to tattoos
 
freako104 said:
I would feel the same. I went to give blood and if I remember correctly

there were questions about tattoos,piercings,sexual history,drug use,alcohol use and some others. I feel for something like donating blood it should be available information.



for the record I could not give blood due to tattoos
Click to expand...

So now we come to the meat of the matter. Risky behavior makes a person unsuitable for blood donation, so how is this, exactly, discrimination against homosexuals? If you read the article, not all homosexuals are excluded...
 
I said the question is. maybe the way it is worded. as far as it being flat out Id say no since there are a lot of factors that go into rejecting or accepting a blood donation
 
i dont want anyone who was promiscuous to give me blood since I wont know what they got
Click to expand...

HOMOPHOBE!!!! Are you scared of sex? You're a bigot & ...shit, I'm not good a this stuff. What else could he be? Help me here.
 
then why not add some more to choose from wise one?


lets see sex: done it before nothing to be scared of. I will now only do it with a woman I love unless she wants to bring another girl into it.
 
Why on earth would they presume that someone who practices homosexuality would be more likely to have unprotected sex? :shrug:

Prejudice, pure and simple .......
 
they ask the gay question on our local redcross forms too. they probably do everywhere. they probably have to. it's a standard question.

i dont think it's a homophobic question.
blood donations are a tricky issue.
you can't play nice or even seem respectful at all times, when it comes to puting someone's lifey-juice in someone else's body, in hopes of keeping them alive.
really.

i mean, the whole thing is really fucking tricky.

i got to give blood once in my life ever. they "found" a virus (i believe it may have been Human T-lymphotrophic Virus (HTLV)) in my blood.
they re-tested it and found i didnt have it after all, but i still have that strike against me, and am not allowed to donate again.

and then there's the tattoo/piercing issue that freako mentioned.
they assume that if you'd gotten a tattoo (in X-recent time, right, freako?), that you shouldnt donate.
much like the assumption that all homosexuals could have some nasty bug, they also assume that individuals with body modifications could as well have a bug.

is IS discrimination. but the word "discrimination" is too often seen in such a negative light. if the red cross had no discriminations (and where does one begin picking and choosing?!), then i wouldnt be surprised if they lost more lives than they saved.

if a person is really THAT pissed about not being able to help save lives... they should remember that blood donation is not the only way to make a difference. i highly suggest volunteerism, be it at the red cross, or anywhere of the sort, for that matter.

i could rationalise the uproarious response ONLY if homosexuals were the only individuals discriminated against by the red cross.
that said, they should just sit back down with the rest of us who can't donate blood, and find some other way to help out, as i said.
 
ashiekins said:
they probably do everywhere
Click to expand...



they do. read my post. they asked about sexual history. straight or gay they had to be sure protection was used and that you were safe.
 
Gato Solo said:
If the AIDS population is mostly among active, promiscuous, homosexuals, and intravenous drug users, then it's not being homophobic.
Click to expand...
No, the question is not homophobic. It's stupid though. I'd like to believe the Red Cross screens all their blood for HIV (that's the virus, AIDS is the disease), hepatitis 3 (much more prevalent than HIV, and as dangerous), etc. Do you think the IV drug users tell the truth? Do you suppose the gays don't know why they ask (and lie if it suits them)? You would expect an organization like the Red Cross to have a better understanding. At least I would. Actually, the more I think about it, the scarier it becomes. What if they don't check it, but use the honor system. My health if I need blood is dependent on someone I've never met telling the truth??? That is honestly the scariest thing I've contemplated lately, but if they do screen all the blood, why do they need to ask the questions?
 
As soon as they draw the blood they've created the oppertunity for tainted blood to accidently find its way into the system. If they can determine high risk prior to the donation and eliminate it on those grounds, it makes us that much safer. It also protects the health workers from unneccessary exposure...
 
Not to mention the added cost of screening so many blood doners with the battery of tests. It's more cost effective to rule them out on the basis of high-risk behavior.
 
Since homosexuals & have a far greater, per capita, number of infected it is a logical step. All blood is screened. It lowers the potential risk to filter out high-risk donors at the door.
 
Oz said:
Why on earth would they presume that someone who practices homosexuality would be more likely to have unprotected sex? :shrug:

Prejudice, pure and simple .......
Click to expand...

Short and sweet...HIV and AIDS are more prominent in the homosexual lifestyle than the heterosexual lifestyle, so the assessment is about risk...and the survey doesn't mention unprotected sex. Just promiscuity.
 
Squiggy said:
As soon as they draw the blood they've created the oppertunity for tainted blood to accidently find its way into the system. If they can determine high risk prior to the donation and eliminate it on those grounds, it makes us that much safer. It also protects the health workers from unneccessary exposure...
Click to expand...

Every health worker I know (and there are a few) take the same precautions with every patient. Every patient. This is part of the rules of their employment. HIV isn't the only thing out there, and how do you know what someone may have been exposed too without even knowing it. This childish fascination with HIV is going to cause something worse to get missed. If the current guidlines are followed, there is very little risk. Of course the homosexueal issue is the cause celebre among the media currently, but did you know:
A person who has had a tattoo must wait twelve months before donating blood, as do people who have been treated for syphilis or gonorrhea or have used intranasal cocaine. Those who have delivered a baby must wait six weeks. Because of BSE, (so-called "mad cow disease"), new requirements disqualify potential donors who have spent more than three months in the United Kingdom or six months in Europe or Oman since 1980.

The guidelines leading to discrimination allegations, however, relate to HIV risk. Current guidelines prevent anyone born in or who has lived in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equator Guinea, Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria since 1977. Of these countries, currently eleven HBS students list their home region as Nigeria. The Red Cross does not state why these particular countries are singled out in the policy.
Click to expand...

link
Seems like they left out part...

Again I say, if they were doing there job properly, none of the questions needed to be asked. It's naive in the extreme to expect everyone to answer them honestly anyway.

My wife wants to know if they only ask men? Three of the five people I know personally who have HIV (only one has AIDS) are women. The misunderstandings about AIDS and HIV are manifold.

Short and sweet...HIV and AIDS are more prominent in the homosexual lifestyle than the heterosexual lifestyle,.
Click to expand...
In the west. I know the figures, but as I mentioned before, I know more women than men with HIV. Oh, and I've never asked any of them, but one of the men is a drug user. Of course he's been in and out of jail too.
 
chcr said:
Every health worker I know (and there are a few) take the same precautions with every patient. Every patient. This is part of the rules of their employment. HIV isn't the only thing out there, and how do you know what someone may have been exposed too without even knowing it. This childish fascination with HIV is going to cause something worse to get missed. If the current guidlines are followed, there is very little risk. Of course the homosexueal issue is the cause celebre among the media currently, but did you know:


link
Seems like they left out part...

Again I say, if they were doing there job properly, none of the questions needed to be asked. It's naive in the extreme to expect everyone to answer them honestly anyway.

My wife wants to know if they only ask men? Three of the five people I know personally who have HIV (only one has AIDS) are women. The misunderstandings about AIDS and HIV are manifold.


In the west. I know the figures, but as I mentioned before, I know more women than men with HIV. Oh, and I've never asked any of them, but one of the men is a drug user. Of course he's been in and out of jail too.
Click to expand...

Most of the heterosexuals that have HIV are drug users, or those who slept with drug users. :shrug: As you've stated, all blood should be checked and the donors checked before they donate, but some may be positive, and the test misses that finding. People make mistakes, and the screening may be to narrow down those mistakes. Who knows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top