posted
So I finally got up the courage to go give blood, since I actually weigh enough to do it now. Went to the vehicle collecting blood on campus, filled out the charts, answered questions, got my arm poked, started giving blood.
As I was sitting there, waiting for them to have gotten enough, I looked out the window, and saw one of the nurses outside smoking. I've been having a lot of problems with asthma this semester, which make me HYPER-sensitive to smoke to the point that I can't be in the same room with someone who has been smoking within the last hour without having problems. And they said no giving blood if you're experiencing symptoms of asthma.
Well, not that big a deal right? I can just call the nurse in the van, explain to him my problem and ask if he could keep that nurse from coming in here until I leave, right? Its not that long a process, right? Maybe five minutes. So I called him over, explained, and he said, yeah, sure, we'll keep her out, the other vans can use the help. (there are other vans collecting blood too)
Two minutes later, my chest starts getting tight. I look around-yes, there is the nurse who was smoking outside, in here, smelling of smoke.
End result is that I have to take albuterol and they have to stop taking blood. So this is basically a wasted endeavor. Well, I'm pretty annoyed, since now they've collected about half a pint of my blood which will probably be wasted, since they couldn't get a whole pint. Not to mention I don't like having asthma attacks because a medical professional who ought to know better decides to ignore me.
I find myself wanting to call and complain, but I am pretty mad, so I want to know if I'm being completely unreasonable before I do that. So, am I?
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would call and complain. I believe that smokers have to be some minimum distance away from a facility in which smoking is not permitted in order for it to qualify as a smoke free facility. (forgive me if I'm making a gaffe in light of not having read the anti-anti-smoke thread).
posted
Last I heard, blood banks around the country were still way under-supplied. They should be bending over backward to keep donors happy -- and able to donate!
posted
I don't think the nurse did it on purpose. And being that sensative to smoke that you get ill just from the smell of it on a person is unexpected. However I totally understand your frustration with professionals not listening to you. My mom has lots of medical complications but she knows all the stuff wrong with her and what she needs. When she goes to a new hospital or sees a new care-giver they often don't listen to her and screw up her meds because "obviously" know better as a "professional".
I have a hard enough time giving blood because I'm gay. Two items on the checklist they give on things that won't let them accept your blood are: if you've had gay sex with a man after 1977, and if you've ever been to Africa.
But of course I've never been to Africa and I just lie about my orientation and give blood just fine. They need my rare blood anyway. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may not have been done on purpose-but unexpected or not, I had explained the whole problem to them, including how sensitive I was, which is why I'm so annoyed.
Your mother has my deepest sympathy, I know exactly how she feels
Ok, I'll call them, then, just wanted to make sure I was being completely ridiculous
quote: I just lie about my orientation and give blood just fine. They need my rare blood anyway.
I understand your frustration at having your blood denied because you are gay, but that is the doctors call--not yours.
You are going against the medical opinion in a secretive manner and that puts life at risk. Even if YOUR blood is fine, unless everyone follows the established protocol, there will be no way for the medical establishment to determain if they need to change the questionier.
They can only have effective questions IF people are honest so the doctors can collect uncorrupted data. Please don't be selfish in an attempt to offer service.
Tolethra,
quote:And they said no giving blood if you're experiencing symptoms of asthma.
I am not sure if I read that right. Does that mean you should not be giving blood? You should complain that 1: they exposed you to smoke, and 2: if they took blood when they should not of.
posted
No, they told me if I was currently experiencing symptoms I couldn't give it. I wasn't, when I went in, my breathing was fine, so I was ok to give blood.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anna, I'm really angry about this. You explained in advance the whole problem. This time it's not a matter of them not understanding. I think you should write up what happened, get the people's names involved (I hope you did that) and send the letter to the Red Cross. Go ahead and find out the head of the whole organization and contact them. This is completely ridiculous. Fight this battle and win it, dear Anna. I'm quite angry.
You should be able to give blood without damage to your health. They should not waste your efforts to help.
Telperion, I know you didn't ask my opinion, but I don't think you should lie to give blood. They have made the decision, based on their medical and epidemiological knowledge, to minimize the risk. This is not a discrimination issue, since you can always put the "No" bar code sticker on the paper at the end. It is your choice how you conduct your sex life, but it is their choice how to keep the blood supply clean. I would never lie on something like this. Doing that would take their choice away of what blood to use. Why would I want to force my blood on someone who didn't want it? Don't you think of it as wrong to take their choice away?
Again, I apologize for offering this opinion unasked. I know it is not my place to question you, but I just wonder if you question yourself on this point, and how you see the ethics of this.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I called. I think my call disappointed my roommate, but I did call and complain. They said they'd call me back in a bit
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No fear Ak. Opinions are what this board is for.
I give blood because I know the critical situation in the supply. I also know that they are very worried about contamination. So the best path for them, as they see it, is just ban everything that might be contaninated. When I'm sexualy active I use protection and get tested every other month or so... so I know I'm clean.
Also, I do see it as a tiny form of discrimination. Nothing that really gets to me much, since they are looking out for the best of everyone. But I know I'm clean, I have rare blood, and I want to give. In this singular case, at least, they are wrong to deny it. So I lie to let them take good blood. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are having sex, you never know you are clean. That is the fact. If you go right now and get an HIV test and they tell you it is negative, that only means that the last person you slept with 3-4 months ago did not transmit HIV to you. You could have had sex any time in the last few months and still not test positive on an HIV test until about 3-4 months have passed since you contracted it.
You only reasonably know you are clean if you have not had sex (gay or straight sex) in the past 6 months and you test negative. Then after any subsequent sexual contact you again can't know.
I was working on my second gallon of blood for the Red Cross when I entered this particular risk group and stopped giving. I'm relatively sure that my blood is clean, but I don't see any value in subverting their system.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Since the blood supply is for the public, I feel compelled to address your behavior. It is not meant as a personal offence, but I understand if if is personal to you.
quote: When I'm sexualy active I use protection and get tested every other month or so... so I know I'm clean.
Your quote shows you have enough concern to get tested. You must be highly educated in pathology and molecular biology to be confident enough about the behavior of AIDS and other STDs to make a judgement that contradicts a panal of experts.
quote:In this singular case, at least, they are wrong to deny it.
YOU asses they are wrong--not me! Since you are NOT being paid to make that decision, you are toying with the public because "you" feel ok about it. As a member in the public who may receive your blood, I am deeply concerned and would turn you in if I could. Very selfish. You are using the public blood bank to make a statement about your sexual practices. Shame.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I agree that you should pursue this with the organization. It is shameful that your request was ignored. It was rude to you and detrimental to their own efforts.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, they get bonus points. I called, and they were very polite (to the disappointment of my roommate, who was sitting up on her bed hoping I'd start yelling at people) The supervisor of the people who were here collecting blood just called back, apologized, asked if I was still having problems, and got descriptions of the people (I didn't think to check names) She said she'd talk to them and try to make sure it wouldn't happen again (her son has asthma, apparently, so she knows what its like)
Very very polite and nice. They definitely get bonus points for that.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Toretha, I'm glad you got through and made your statement.
Alexa/KarlEd, I'm not having sex and then running off to give blood the next week. As KarlEd says, wait 3 months before thinking about it. My point was that on the form it says you can't give blood if you've had gay sex with a male after 1977. That's when I was born, so obviously any relations I have will be after 1977. That is the silly part I disagree with.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I give blood because I know the critical situation in the supply.
Perhaps you should let them, the experienced professionals, make that call. Apparently they don't feel that the blood shortage is critical enough to evaluate you on a case-by-case basis. What you're doing is IMO extremely unethical. Why don't you talk it over with a Red Cross offical and explain what you're up to?
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dangermom, It is not unethical at all. Read my very last post. If it's been half a year since the last encounter, you get tested, come up negative on everything, what's the danger? Red cross have their own battery of tests they do too. Should we only have virgins give blood?
[ April 20, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't the Red Cross test all the blood anyway? Despite of what someone does/does not say on their form? Because they have to test it for HIV, for Hepatitis, for many other things, that heterosexuals can have as well as homosexuals.
*and I'm confused because up to this point I always thought KarlEd and Telperion were the same person using different usernames -- I really need to start reading profiles!*
quote:This issue was discussed in the correspondence section of the April 11, 1996 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, as reproduced below.
To the Editor: The very small risk of HIV transmission through the transfusion of screened blood estimated by Lackritz et al, makes the policy of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that effectively prohibits blood donation by gay men indefensible. In 1983, when the cause of AIDS was not yet understood and the disease appeared to be linked to homosexuality, the FCA required blood banks to reject blood donations by men who answered "yes" to the donor-screening question, "have you ever had sex with another man, even one time, since 1977?" Incredibly, this policy remains in effect, unnecessarily disqualifying many potential donors of healthy blood. . . .
The following response was provided:
The issue of donor exclusion raised by Mr. (Name Withheld) was not evaluated in our original report. Preventing blood donation by those potentially exposed to infectious diseases has been one of the cornerstones of the prevention of disease transmission to blood recipients. Questioning potential blood donors serves to identify those who have medical risks or have engaged in activities or behavior that is unquestionable associated with a risk of infection with HIV or another infectious agent. These policies and others, such as the exclusion of healthy persons who have traveled to areas with endemic malaria and those who have had hepatitis infection, disqualify many potential donors of safe blood but also remove from the donor pool those at increased risk for transmitting infectious diseases by transfusion.
In the United States, male-male sexual contact remains a leading risk for HIV infection. Despite the current questioning of donors and use of exclusion criteria, a study of 19 large U.S. blood centers revealed that 43 percent of all donations discarded because they were HIV-positive came from men who reported a history of male-male sexual contact. These data support the need to continue interviewing potential donors about behavior that presents a risk of HIV transmission.
So the reason, ultimately, they refuse homosexuals donating blood is to reduce the cost of having to test and discard a high percentage of that population of blood.
If Tel's as sure as I am about not having AIDS, then I don't see quite as big of a moral dilemma in donating. It's not as if their screening tests are off:
quote:The chance of getting hepatitis B or C from screened blood today (1996) is very low - approximately 1 in 50-100,000 per unit of blood received.
It's been stated that "the risk of not getting a blood transfusion when it's needed is infinitely greater that the risk of infection from receiving one."
and
quote:Since the first reports of AIDS in the early 1980s, over 150 million blood donations have been made in the USA, without a single report of a person acquiring HIV/AIDS through donating blood.
The issue isn't whether you waited six months to have sex. The issue is you lying on the form.
quote: It is not unethical at all. Read my very last post. If it's been half a year since the last encounter, you get tested, come up negative on everything, what's the danger? Red cross has their own battery of tests they do too. Should we only have virgins give blood?
It is unethical. The danger is up to the professionals to determine, not you. You have ignored all the pertinent reasons for you not to do this practice. You are wrong, unethical, dangerously immature, and selfish to continue to lie about your sexual practices while giving blood. Period.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason for that date is because that is when AIDS appeared. It is not a silly date they chose. AIDS simply didn't exist before 1977, so if a person had had a homosexual encounter before then they would not have contracted it. That is the reason for the date.
I've been denied because I still had one last dose of antibiotics to put in my ear, not even take orally, and it would still be another two weeks before I would have been elegible. None of the antibiotics were in the bloodstream, it had been a very mild infection, and I felt completely fine.
I get denied all the time because I have low iron content. One number higher, and I can donate. I've been told that they put a buffer on it, so that actually chances are I could still safely donate. In this case, it is not the risk of others, but the risk to myself they are concerned about.
It isn't discrimination. It isn't homosexuality. It is risk. If I had sex with you, I'd be in the risk group and be unable to donate. If I had been a prostitute or paid a prostitute to have sex, I'd be unable to donate. If my husband had been a prostitute aor paid a prostitute to have sex, I would be unable to donate.
If I went on an LDS mission to a number of countries, I'd be unable to donate.
It has absolutely nothing to do with someone not liking homosexuals and everything to do with risk. I'm sorry you are in a risk group. Wish you weren't. But you are.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, you're lying when you answer the questions, and you are not leaving the judgement up to the people whose job that is. You are taking upon yourself a judgement that is not yours. That's unethical.
If you think it's honest, then explain your position to the next person who screens you.
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Tel, just so you don't feel beat around, I disagree with Alexa. I think she's being quite harsh.
If you were using the blood donation as a way of testing yourself for HIV, then I would think such things. But you're not.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, Toretha, I'm glad you spoke to them. I don't like dropping things like that when they happen. Gets me all agitated.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
In order for the decision making people to make the right decisions, they need to be sure they are working with the right information. In those studies, if everyone lied (like tel), then they could not with any assurance make well informed and correct policy changes.
posted
Thank you Suneun. I understand Alexa is concerned, as we should be, about keeping the new Plague from getting even farther into our civilization.
Alexa, I only lie when it comes to 'civil disobedience'. Just because something is a rule or a law does not make it intrinsically good. But I understand your concern. Peace.
[ April 20, 2004, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that the percentage of HIV cases that are female increases each year, and that getting AIDS through heterosexual sex is not exactly unheard of these days, that question to me seems incredibly unfair and outdated. I'm surprised they have it on there.
Posts: 4292 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're interested in the subject, here's a very good description of how things stand today:
quote:The official thinking for why gay men should not be allowed to donate, therefore, goes something like this: If the blood donor pool is opened to healthy gay men, not many more potential donors are included given the small numbers of gay men overall. Assume 5 percent of the 130 million American males are gay, which gives a rough estimate of 6.5 million gay men in the United States. Assume at least 85 percent of these men are healthy, HIV-uninfected, with no other exclusions and that they would donate blood at roughly the same rate as the rest of the population (less than 5 percent). This results in an expansion of the donor pool by only about 250,000 people. At the same time the donor pool is opened up to a much larger number of potentially HIV-infected people. The risk of allowing gay men to donate is therefore disproportionate to the benefit of a relatively small increase in the donor pool.
This cold calculation gives a sense of the underlying argument for a level of caution when considering the issue but does not answer why all gay men, or at least any man who has had sex with a man since 1977, should be permanently barred from blood donation. Why not expand the donor pool by 250,000 when the nation faces a blood shortage? Is there some other way to formulate a policy based on science that recognizes epidemiological reality but also feels less discriminatory and stigmatizing to healthy gay men?
A recent meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee of the FDA addressed this question. At the start of the meeting, the committee agreed that the permanent ban on gay men seemed discriminatory, lacked a firm foundation in science, and should be changed. A majority of committee members indicated they would vote to change the policy. Public statements from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, the Human Rights Campaign, various hemophilia groups, and the American Association of Blood Banks all urged a change in the policy. Only the American Red Cross urged no change be made. But, what should the policy be changed to?
The FDA proposed changing the lifetime ban to five years, bringing the gay ban in line with the length of time organ or tissue transplant recipients are barred from blood donation. In other words, any man who has had sex with another man during the last five years would be barred from donating. The blood bank association urged a one-year ban, putting the gay ban in line with that for visiting a prostitute, and the gay doctors made a similar proposal. Any of these approaches are unlikely to feel less discriminatory, and are unlikely to have much practical effect for the majority of gay-identified men. The only men who may be included in the donor pool as a result of such a change would be those who had their last homosexual experience five or more years ago.
The committee seemed poised to recommend a change in the gay donation policy, but then the slides on herpes virus 8 were presented. Human herpes virus 8 (HHV-8) is a newly discovered virus thought to be the cause of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS). HHV-8 is also widespread among gay men, which helps explain the early, baffling concentration of KS among gay AIDS patients but not heterosexual ones. Although KS in gay men is almost always the result of infection with both HIV and HHV-8, there have been a few isolated cases of KS in gay men with HHV-8 alone. Data emerging on HHV-8 show that it shares a similar epidemiological profile with HIV. Gay men begin acquiring HHV-8 during late adolescence when sexual activity begins, and its incidence accelerates through early adulthood. By age 40, about one-third of gay men seem to be infected with HHV-8. The virus appears rarely in the U.S. heterosexual population.
HHV-8 is most likely transmitted orally, but no blood test is routinely available to detect those who have it. In Africa, where HHV-8 is endemic, the virus seems to be acquired in childhood. HHV-8 has also been transmitted through kidney transplants and dialysis procedures. Can HHV-8 be transmitted through a blood transfusion? No one knows. Faced with this uncertainty, the committee changed its mood, and declined to recommend a specific revision of the gay blood donation policy.
After deciding not to alter the policy, the committee outlined a series of research questions for the FDA that may help the agency revisit the issue at a later date:
How many gay men abstain from sex for one, two and five years?
How many gay men are there in the United States?
How does HIV incidence vary among sub-groups of gay men?
How is HHV-8 transmitted?
Can gay men with a higher risk of having HIV be identified more precisely in the screening questionnaires?
quote:I only lie when it comes to 'civil disobedience'. Just because something is a rule or a law does not make it intrinsically good.
It's true that a law is not always a good one, and this one is up for discussion. But shouldn't you be honest and open about your civil disobedience? CO is supposed to support discussion and change, not encourage lying to get around the rules. That's not civil disobedience, it's just lying. Perhaps if you were to start a letter campaign discussing the pros and cons of the policy, or try to raise awareness by demonstrations, that would be actually in the spirit of CO.
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was denied once because I had a cold. It was explained to me that the blood could be given to someone with a compromised immune system, and they would have a harder time fighting the cold.
Suneun: that last quote (edited: in your post beginning "Hmmm. Here's a statement about it: ") is about catching AIDS while donating, not giving AIDS through donating:
quote:10. How can I be sure I won't get AIDS from donating blood? Why don't staff change gloves between donors?
All donated blood is collected in new, sterile, disposable needles and plastic bags that are used only once and then discarded. Blood donors, because they are all healthy volunteers and undergo careful screening for HIV risk behavior before donating blood, have the lowest incidence of HIV of any population group.
Since the first reports of AIDS in the early 1980s, over 150 million blood donations have been made in the USA, without a single report of a person acquiring HIV/AIDS through donating blood.
Also, I didn't address the original issue - which is health professionals having a negative impact on people in their care by exhibiting negatively healthy behavior (smoking) - can you tell where I stand?
posted
Yes, I know. It's completely relevant to the discussion. The assumed question is: Does donating when you might have AIDS result in someone getting AIDS contaminated blood?
The answer is... No one ever has, to our knowledge, been given AIDS through donated blood. The screens and tests are quite good.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan White contracted HIV and died of AIDS in the early days, when HIV was first becoming known. As a hemophiliac, he was receiving blood products pooled from multiple donors, which increased his risk of contracting the virus.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The answer is... No one ever has, to our knowledge, been given AIDS through donated blood. The screens and tests are quite good.
Nope. No one has gotten AIDS through doanted blood since the testing for AIDS started. A different statement.
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suneun - But we do know that HIV-infected blood can give a person HIV and the donee would later develop AIDS.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The risk of an AIDS-contaminated blood donation eluding current blood bank screening tests is less than 1 in 82,000, according to researchers at the University of California at San Francisco and the Irwin Memorial Blood Bank.
also
quote:About 3.6 million Americans receive blood transfusions each year. Each transfusion averages four units of blood, so that if the data applies nationwide, as many as 200 people will receive HIV-tainted blood each year, Vyas said.
However, that risk pales against other risks of blood transfusions, Vyas said. For example, as many as one person in a hundred who receives a blood transfusion will get hepatitis, he said.
"The risk of getting hepatitis is probably 50 times greater, and the morbidity and mortality associated with hepatitis from a transfusion is at least 10 times greater than AIDS," Vyas said.
Actually, I'd prefer not to be in either group.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's not your call to make. The questions they ask aren't for their own personal health and agendas - it's to protect the health of the people giving and recieving blood. Lying on the form is unethical. For whatever else goes along with it, you DO belong to a high risk group. The person running the risk is whoever gets your blood.
They may need the blood, but it isn't your call to make of whether or not the risk is worth it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: No one ever has, to our knowledge, been given AIDS through donated blood.
I hope they screen all the blood now, but didn't anyone in the past get it from donated blood? Did they used to differentiate? I know Arthur Ashe got AIDS by a transfusion.
Tel, I know you want to help but have you tried other courses apart from civil disobedience? I mean, I repeat that if they need to be screening all blood anyways. I just wondered if you had tried other means of changing the system.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ok... I'll try and explain more of my side without insulting anyone. Part of the problem of not haveing voice inflection or body language...
An example story: I was raised to think of blood donation as part of my duty to the country/society. The first couple times I went to give blood in high school. No problem there since I never had sex before. The next year passes and I didn't give at all since I was busy with preparing for college and having my first love. We were both virgins (yes, I'm 100% sure he was a virgin). This is where the checklist came as a concern for me. I had gay sex but there was no chance that I had anything. I KNEW it was wrong for me, personally, to be denied. Do I throw my hands up and say "yes, I'm tainted forever"? I wasn't about to let the umbrella get me. So, it's not so much "civil disobediance" as I think it's my civil duty to give blood.
It's like another event. Long story short: my friend Heather made me promise that I wouldn't tell my other friend Eileen that Heather could not move in with her. The weeks pass and Heather never told Eileen. Time gets critical for money to be handed over and Eileen is in the dark. So I finally tell Eileen what's going on. The eternal balance between loyalty to friends and loyalty to what you think is right or ethical. Lesser of two evils.
So back on track, ignorning the years after and the growing risk that comes with time, for this single case, was I wrong to give blood?
ps- I just want to let everyone know again that I totally understand your concern. No harm no foul and the advice has been noted. Thanks.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We know the tests don't catch all cases, though. That's why in addition to the screening test, they also ask the questions.
Are you doing a good deed if you lie in order to sneak someone a gift that they do not want? I think not.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a donor is HIV - and otherwise bug -, then their blood is AS GOOD AS a virgin's HIV - and otherwise bug - blood.
There is nothing wrong with Tel's blood, as far as he knows, as far as the blood center knows. His blood is as good as my blood, as I gave blood a month ago and was HIV - AFAIK and as far as the blood center knows.
Many of you have made comments which imply that gay blood is inherently bad blood. It's not!
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slightly off topic, but last time I tried to give blood, they had a lot of trouble finding the vein. They caused me a lot of pain "looking for it" and I started to go into mild shock. I still wanted to donate on the other arm, but they wouldn't let me! I insisted that I would be fine and it was no big deal, but they refused. I was pretty ticked off that they wouldn't let me donate after the time I had sacrificed to come in, arranging to have my kids watched and all.
On the other hand, my first experience giving blood I went into shock too. But the guy administering the stuff was acting like a jerk. I doubt he was *trying* to act like a jerk, I think he thought he was being funny. He said things like, "Oh, is this your first time? It's my first time too." I was already quite nervous!! I began to feel nauseated and threw up. This was at work. I was so mortified by the whole thing, it was a long time before I was willing to try again.
Now, having given birth multiple times, I am quite accustomed to my blood being taken and needles and stuff. Most of the time, I'm fine. There is just no telling ahead of time if I'm going to be squeamish or not.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mean to imply that it's bad. But what it is is higher risk. I don't see how hijacking their right to choose which blood to take is any better than trying to choose for others who their lovers should be. I see the two situations as similar, which is why it surprises me that someone who is naturally concerned with freedom of choice is trying to circumvent the free choice of others.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an odd and worrisome policy. Most cases of HIV worldwide are not gay people.
If I was doing the horizontal bop with whoever I wanted, whenever I wanted (which I guess I am, but since we're married I guess that's beside the point ) I think my blood would be much riskier than Telp's.
And what do they mean by 'gay sex'? Anal sex? Oral sex? Frottage? Do they just mean any sort of sex a man can have with another man, and then only if both people are male? I mean, if I have anal sex with my beloved, my blood is still okay. I get that.
*BUT* If I have anal sex with strangers for kicks, they'll still take my blood, but NOT Telp's even though he's been HIV tested AND celibate for longer than six months?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
Part of the problem of not haveing voice inflection or body language... ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) I think my blood would be much riskier than Telp's.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Do they just mean any sort of sex a man can have with another man, and then only if both people are male? I mean, if I have anal sex with my beloved, my blood is still okay. I get that.
