This is topic Trying to give blood-am I being unreasonable here? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=023605

---

Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
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).

[ April 20, 2004, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Definitely complain. You're doing them a favor.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
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!

DEFINITELY complain!
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
 
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

[ April 20, 2004, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Telperion,

quote:

---

I just lie about my orientation and give blood just fine. They need my rare blood anyway.

---

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.

[ April 20, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
 

---

Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
< -- has never understood why health care workers like doctors and nurses smoke. They see what it does to people...

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Telperion,

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Excellent!
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
 

quote:

---

I give blood because I know the critical situation in the supply.

---

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.

---

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."

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
BTW, Toretha, I'm glad you spoke to them. I don't like dropping things like that when they happen. Gets me all agitated.
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Suneun,

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.

[ April 20, 2004, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

The answer is... No one ever has, to our knowledge, been given AIDS through donated blood. The screens and tests are quite good.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Hello Kat and Pooka!

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.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Sorry, I was wrong about that statement. No one has gotten it that we know of once the screens have been in place.

[ April 20, 2004, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
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?

That is SO whack.
 

---

Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 
Tor, they can use your blood for research purposes which is still a very valuable contribution.

I tend to pass out when I give blood and I don't always get to give the entire amount (they take the needle out when your eyes start to roll back in your head). I was very disappointed the first time it happened and that's when I found out that they use donated blood for research.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 

quote:

---

Many of you have made comments which imply that gay blood is inherently bad blood

---

I agree. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the lying on the form BUT I can understand why Telperion does it and I think in his case, as he has outlined, he is not passing the "risk" on to whoever gets his blood.

Given his precautions and the fact he has HIV tests, his blood is much *less* likely to be infected then the blood from a number of heterosexual people who do not take precautions and do not have HIV tests.

So the real point of disagreement should be "is it ever ok to lie on such a form when you personally know the risk factor doesn't apply to you?" rather than any notions of the fact that Telperion does so is passing on 'more risky than normal' blood.

I guess an analogy would be the whole mad cow thing. I'm not allowed to give blood because I was in England for more than 6 months at the relative time. I also have the universal donor blood type, so it's always in demand. If I was a strict vegan, and had been all the time I was in England, would it justify me lying so I could give my blood? Given that CJ disease is passed on through meat products, which I wouldn't have had?

Edit: Mrs M, me too! Apparently I have slow veins....

[ April 20, 2004, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
I HAVE been denied the opportunity to give blood in the past, because I took maaria meds before going to Brazil, and then once because I had an infected tonsil and had been on antibiotics for six months on and off to try to 'save' it. I wanted them to just take the sucker, but no. *sigh*

Couldn't give blood for SEVEN YEARS because of the Brazil thing. Quite disappointing.

And Toretha, Good on you! I'm glad the woman was so kind to you when you complained. You did the right thing.

Beverly-- Doesn't that do it to ya? The whole pregnancy thing really changed my attitudes about needles, and, I suppose, modesty. I used to be all EW! about needles, and so terrified of annual physicals that my heart rate was never accurate. Now I can actually carry on a conversation about my kids while in the stirrups. It's bizarre.
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
Yes, Imogen. That's kind of what I was getting at in my last post, but I gues syou said it better.

Edit: I meant my last post on the first page, which no one will ever read, anyway.

[ April 20, 2004, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Olivetta ]
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Actually Olivetta, because I was typing slowly I only saw your post after I posted.

And considered editing my entire post to "Yeah, what Olivetta said".


 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Whew. That's the second time today I've posted something, gotten bashed on it, and had to be saved by fellow hatrackers. Thanks, guys*.



* You know, where guys means girls. Gals?

[ April 20, 2004, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
 

---

Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
 
I do not think that gay blood is bad blood, and it's possible that the rule should be changed to allow for current conditions. I also think that lying on the form, for whatever reason, is wrong. I think Tel was wrong the first time he lied, and he's wrong now. It is not his call to make, and it's not anyone's civic duty to lie in order to give blood. If the rule needs to be changed, then a discussion should be opened and everything discussed. Lying to get around the rule is just self-serving and does nothing to change the situation.

quote:

---

I'm not allowed to give blood because I was in England for more than 6 months at the relative time. I also have the universal donor blood type, so it's always in demand. If I was a strict vegan, and had been all the time I was in England, would it justify me lying so I could give my blood? Given that CJ disease is passed on through meat products, which I wouldn't have had?

---

No, it would still be wrong. AFAIK part of the reason that the ban is so comprehensive is that they don't really know exactly how CJ is transmitted, and so even strict vegetarians are disallowed. It doesn't matter why you lie; it's still a lie, and you're still taking the judgement call away from those who are trained to make it.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I've never been allowed to give blood. For years I was always underweight and anemic. Then they finally figured out that I was underweight and anemic because I have a 100% treatable autoimmune disorder. I weight enough now and have a great RBC count. Now they won't take my blood because I have an auto-immune disorder.

The male-male sex question on the donor forms reflects a dated understanding of HIV. It would be far more reasonable to ask if the person (or their partner) has had a new sexual partner in the past six months and if they have been tested for HIV since their last new sexual partner.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 


I would happily take Tel's blood, if I needed it and he was a match for me. I trust him that he would never knowingly put anyone at risk, and would only be giving blood if he was positive he was negative, especially since he is aware he is in a higher than normal risk group.

I am, however, a proponent of working for change within the system, so I have a difficult time with the idea of lying in order to do something good, even if the rule is stupid. I only break rules when I am fully aware of the consequences and willing to accept them if I'm caught. An example (pretty much the only one) being I speed. If I get pulled over, I will not try to talk my way out of it, I will not go to court and try to fight it. I will pay it. I was wrong. The difference here is that if Tel is wrong, he is not the one who has to take the consequences... makes it a much more difficult choice.

However, I think the arguements being put forth that he is somehow forcing his blood on people who don't want it are flawed. It is the system that objects to Tel's blood. I think many, if not most, people when presented with the choice to accept the blood of a gay man who has been celibate for 6+ months and has tested HIV- would not have a problem with it. Most reasonable people, certainly. People who are homophobic or less well educated about the risks, maybe not. Unfortunately, there is not a way to check with the recipients on their feelings on the matter, short of Tel only doing targeted donations for enlightened individuals.

In other words, I am unhappy that this situation exists. I cannot condem or condone Tel's actions, but I strongly believe that the criteria for donation should be overhauled.

(Edit to add: I am a regular blood donor myself. But I am currently self-deferring for 6 months because I did something that was just the slightest bit risky, and I'm not willing to pass that risk on. I am a universal donor as well, and we are short on blood, and the Red Cross has called me twice to ask me to come donate and the blood drive coordinator at work has asked me... and I feel like an idiot. Not for deferring, but for putting myself at risk in the first place. So yeah, I'd -way- rather have a responsible homo- or hetero- sexual person who knows their risks and acts accordingly donating then an irresponsible one of either persuasion.

[ April 20, 2004, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
I agree with ElJay. (I'm doing that a lot lately. So well reasoned, coherent, rational... it must run in the family ) The criteria does need reworking.

Dangermom, I think I agree with your last post as well. What I was trying to get across in my post was that the lying issue is different and distinct from "increased risk". Tel's blood is no more, and probably a lot less in some cases, risky than a heap of people who are allowed to donate. I don't think him lying is putting other people at danger. But I'm not sure lying is the right way to do it.

Oh, and Suneun - no probs.
 

---

Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
 
Mrs. M-they can use it? really??? That makes me feel much better-I had to argue with my mother over this to begin with, and it going to waste really annoyed me.

[ April 20, 2004, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
 

---

Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 
Absolutely. I promise.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Thank you imogen! But really, I'm quite irrational in person. I'm just trying to live up to my big sis.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
I gave blood once post 9-11. The actual blood taking went great.

But then I passed out while I was drinking my orange juice and cookies.
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
I don't think it's OK that Tel's blood is somehow INFERIOR. I don't think that the logic is all right. But there's a difference between civil disobedience and just plain flying in the face of the rules. I don't think Tel has AIDS or HIV, but I think that rules are in place for a reason, albeit not a very good reason. Civil disobedience would be giving blood and putting the NO barcode on. There's something wrong with Tel's not being able to give his rare blood, but there's also something wrong with lying on the form. I just don't think that the ends justify the means.

Yeah. I'm Lawful Good.

[ April 20, 2004, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Teph, please excuse me while I publicly turn my back and choose to shun you. Not because of your orientation, nor your choice of words.

Simply because your idea of civic duty is one that if followed, could very much put the lives of others at risk. Ever hear how long HIV can remain dormant?

And no offense, but if you'd lie to the Red Cross about something so important, how can we trust you when you say you haven't had an encounter in the last six months? Or that you always use protection. Or even that you might only have sex with folks that look like they're really, really clean.

Thanks for putting a bunch of unwitting people in need of blood at dire risk.
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
Did somebody post a link backing up the claim that nobody has contracted HIV through receiving donated blood? I have read the thread, but maybe I just missed it.

-o-

quote:

---

Many of you have made comments which imply that gay blood is inherently bad blood. It's not!

---

quote:

---

Given that CJ disease is passed on through meat products, which I wouldn't have had?

---

I wish I remembered the show, perhaps someone here can help me find the source. I was watching a special on mad cow disease quite a while ago, and they claimed that Madcow disease has been found in crops. Apperently MC is a protein structure (or something like that--it has beena while) and not alive. Anyways, something happened to get it into a few crops. I wish I could remember the whole story.

Ack...tired...it may not be a ture story, but the point is the same.

The point--There are many factors in decision making, not just those publicized. Aids is not the only reason homosexual blood is rejected.

And so, by a tired leap of logic, you should not, even if you are a vegan.
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
Hmm.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Perhaps the problem with CJ disease is that there is no way to test for it. You get it by ingesting the prions from mad cow brain/nervous system material. It's feasible that you could eat contaminated non-meat food. Dunno how often it happens.

The incubation is years long, so you won't know for a long time after you contract it. And again, they can't test for it.
---
Icarus: I was just trying to clear the impression I was getting from people that the problem was the quality of Tel's blood, which is a separate issue from the question of lying on the blood donor questionnaire. We don't know much about HHV-8's transmission, but they don't think it's transferred by blood. It's usually coexistant with HIV. If a gay man abstains from sex for 6-8 months and gets tested for HIV/STD's (found negative), then that man's blood is as safe as my blood. It's more of a question of wasted resources by the Blood Center to sift through a population of blood donors in which HIV is at a higher prevalance. If a gay man had HIV and donated blood, it would almost definitely get caught. By the same token, if I gave blood and was HIV +, it would almost definitely get caught. But I'm allowed to give blood, and he's not.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
I didn't know that about BSE.

What I find silly about the whole thing is in the period before the ban came in (2001, I think), the Red Cross actively encouraged me to give blood as I wouldn't be able to after the ban.

So my blood went out there in 2001. It just can't now.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
If you're curious, they mention, "In addition, the interval between the most likely period for the initial extended exposure of the population to potentially BSE-contaminated food (1984-1986) and onset of initial variant CJD cases (1994-1996) is consistent with known incubation periods for CJD." on the CDC website. There have been other BSE exposures, that's just the first one. Here is the article.

It's an interesting disease.... (i know, weird me). I remember reading an interesting ethics paper with the following true question: If someone donates blood, then discovers decades later that they have CJD, is it ethically correct for the doctor to notify the blood receipient? We don't know if the CJD was transferred, we can't test for it, and there's no cure.

[ April 21, 2004, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Sun, we love Tel, admire his generosity in wanting to give blood, and no one is attacking his blood. I hope that he doesn't feel attacked.

*grin* There's no need to don the shiny armor. The issue is whether or not an individual has the right to circumvent the system and what civil disobedience means.

In this case, it isn't civil disobedience. It's not civil disobedience unless it is capable of changing something.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I completely agree it has nothing to do with civil disobedience.

It's a term that gets used inappropriately quite often.
 

---

Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
 
let's change the focus from "gay" blood versus "non-gay" blood and look at another risk factor:

If I were a drug addict - shooting up (I sound silly, don't I?), would you want me donating blood?

"I only use fresh needles."
"I never share my needles."
"I have my blood tested periodically to be sure I don't have any blood-related diseases."

Do you believe me? Would you want my blood?

Please note, this is a hypothetical situation. I do not nor have I ever used this type of drug. I'm just trying to look at this from a different angle.
 

---

Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
 
No one goes to the doctor’s office and lies to their doctor. The reason for this is simple you go there to get an expert’s advice, or instructions, you ask them because they know what they are doing,

The people that made up the form you fill out to give blood can be considered experts as well. They made up the form to assist in reducing the possibility that anyone (Anyone, the people who test the blood, the people who work at the blood drives, the people who receive the blood) would contract a disease from the donated blood. Whether or not Telperion the Silver has HIV is completely irrelevant, as it is not his choice to make. Anyone can offer their blood for the blood bank; it is up to the people who run it to decide whose they take.

There is nothing inherently bad about a gay person’s blood, as far as I am concerned, but my opinion is not relevant. I wasn’t the one who made the choice not accept it.

If you feel it is your civic duty to donate blood, and they won’t take it, I am certain that there are other things you could do to help. (hang filers, call people for the blood bank, etc)
 

---

Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
Tel and apologists, consider:

The only way the powers that be will reconsider the gay-sex question is if they have evidence that gay men provide a lower risk than they previously believed. The only way this statistic will arise is if prudent, responsible men test negative having checked the homo box.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
My goodness, CaySedai, you make this interesting! I'll bite!

No, given your hypothetical drug using status, I do not want your blood. Here's why:

IV drug use affects people mentally and emotionally. I believe that's why people do it. When you are sober and making these statements to me, I have no doubt that you have only the best of intentions to only use clean needles and never share needles. However, I know that when you are high and/or in withdrawal, that your decision making capabilities are not the same as they are when you are sober. I believe that there is a strong possibility that if the only needle available looks clean, or has just been used by someone who looks clean, and you really need a fix, you might be more inclined to rationalize that that really doesn't count, and maybe not to remember the situation quite so clearly in the morning and continue your assertations that you couldn't possibly be infected.

In other words, if you are making the decision to use mind-altering drugs I am going to question all of your other decisions and your reliability. And although homosexuality may be located within the brain, I don't think it has quite the same effect as, say, heroin.

As a matter of fact, I've been thinking a lot about this very question recently. My new boyfriend told me, after we had become intimate, that the reason he and his last girlfriend had broken up was that she had started using interveinous drugs. Meth, to be precise. I had an appointment to donate blood two days later. I was rather upset, to put it mildly. He didn't really understand... he's a rather naive and trusting person. "But she told me she only used clean needles, never shared them, and has been tested, so there's nothing to worry about" is almost word-for-word what he told me.

I explained to him that while he knew her and could choose to trust her, I did not, for the reasons listed above, and I certainly was not going to on behalf of whomever might receive my blood. That is not my decision to make. And actually, I had thought I'd only have to stop for 6 months, but now that I think about it it's probably a year, because I think one of the questions is "In the last year have you had sex, even once, with someone who has had sex, even once, with an IV drug user?" So even if I get tested and am personally sure I'm clean, the decision of the experts is that I'm high-risk... and as I stated above, I do not break this sort of rule. Anyway, I'm still a bit grumpy about it. But I would not want your blood.
 

---

Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
 

quote:

---

No one goes to the doctor’s office and lies to their doctor. The reason for this is simple you go there to get an expert’s advice, or instructions, you ask them because they know what they are doing

---

HAHAHAHAHA
*wipes eyes*

Please excuse me. Carry on.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 


(((Theca)))

Oh, yeah!
 

---

Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
 
ElJay:

you have made my point for me. You know the old saying, "when you make love, you make love with everyone that person has made love with." (it's something like that, anyway) The point is, sexual partners bring more than love to a relationship.

I've been married 21 years (scary, huh?) and things aren't going too well right now (again and frequently). I am scared to death of the dating scene. I can imagine living the rest of my life without sex because of fear of getting an STD. (Plus) I can't imagine being intimate with anyone else.

Maybe the question should be, "have you had sex with a new sexual partner in the last year and what is the result of your latest HIV test (within the last week, month or whatever)?"
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
When I'm on the table after getting shot and I'm bleeding to death I won't give a rat's ass if it's homo blood, druggie blood or monkey blood. If it has passed all the required tests then please, hook it up to my veins, baby!
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
CaySedai - I may have proved your point, but I didn't prove the "gay men shouldn't donate" one. If I wait a year and test clean, I can donate again. Telp can't. Ever. Period. If he never has sex again and tests HIV and Hepatitis negative every-other month for the next 20 years, according to the current rules he still can't donate. Less then 5% of the population donate, and he has a rare blood type. I'm still not saying he should lie, but we've got to be able to come up with better rules.

The rules, by the way, can be found at:

http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html

And according to this, actually, I technically don't have to wait a year. But I will anyway.

And really, the dating scene isn't as scary as all that. I was an idiot, once. I regret it. Obviously, if you can save your marriage, you should. But if it doesn't work out, don't freak about STDs... finding someone you want to be with is much, much more difficult than just finding someone who's clean.

Okay, work now! No more posting for ElJay today!
 

---

Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
 
Well then I just don't get, why bother going if your not going to tell the truth? You might as well stay home and save the money.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
I think there will come a day in the future, hopefully, where there will be immediate on-site testing (much like they do for your iron count right now). And on that future date, you will go in to give blood, they will take a sample, quickly analyze it, declare it safe / or/ not-safe, and accept your blood if it is safe. No questionaires, no grey areas of understanding.

I just wish our technology would catch up to this need faster.

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Farmgirl - I completely agree. And then I'd (maybe) be able to donate.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Article about people encrouaged to lie on the questionaire: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/04/13/sorority.blood.lies.ap/
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Here's a related question. Would you lie about your sexual history to a potential sex partner? Would you think it's ethical to do so? Do you think it's up to you to decide the level of risk to someone else from your own choices?

HIV tests don't show positive for six months. All the testing in the world won't catch people newly infected. Shouldn't the hematologists be the ones to decide what is an acceptable risk and what isn't?

What technology will hopefully bring us eventually is a good blood substitute which will be manufactured instead of donated, so it can't transmit diseases and won't have any antigens, will transport oxygen more efficiently than blood by volume, will have a long shelf life, and not need refrigeration. The holy grail of hematology.
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
People usually test HIV positive within 3-4 months of exposure. I think 12 weeks is the minimum.
 

---