Whoo hooo! I'm online once more!! And at a very nice speed... hehehe....
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yeah, we'll see how long that lasts. <_<
Good to see you back. Although please forgive me for not using a dancing smiley -- my back hurts too much to jump around right now.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In one of those interesting coincidences, I'm back too. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Awww.. poor Porter... *gives back massage*
Welcome back too KoM.
And Porter, I'll be online for sure for at least a year. Just got connected through my city which has all it's own services. Only $30 a month for a 5.0 connection! Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In one of those interesting coincidences, I'm back too.
I actually wondered where you'd been lately while I was driving in my car yesterday.
Forums are clearly too intertwined in my psyche.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Huh. Me three.
Suddenly I wonder if Telp, KoM, and I are all actually the same person, Fight Club style . . .
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I never know if I'm really back. What happened was someone on the other side mentioned a plaidpooka, and at first I was like "how could someone pimp my handle like that?" But then I realized if I never post here, I can't really complain.
Also, sake was busted.
Anyway, there is no plaidpooka, unless it's something on the writer's workshop. But I am very happy to see you, Telp. And I thought of you recently even before I saw that article on AOL about gay men still being banned from donating blood (which was on this morning.)
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Telp!! Great to see you. Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Welcome back, Telp. I'm back as well.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Thanks guys. And Pooka gay men have been banned giving blood for some time. Since at least 1994 when I first gave blood... I lied of course. But since then I've been more careful since I've been sexually active. Very important to be tested first before you give blood. It all depends on how many partners you've been with.
And if you've even stepped foot in Africa you are banned from giving blood.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm really uncomfortable with people lying in order to be able to give blood.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Agreed. No kidding.
Welcome back, Telp and Icky. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver:
And if you've even stepped foot in Africa you are banned from giving blood.
Actually not true. I have been to Kenya and I give blood all the time. There is a question on the form, but a "yes" is not an automatic deferral. At least not a permanent one. I may have had to wait a year. It was almost 20 years ago, so I don't remember exactly. Depends, too, on where you go in Africa, I think.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've set foot in Africa about 8 years ago, but I've lived in Malaysia, Taiwan, China, and I've been to Thailand, Indonesia, The Philippines, and Singapore. Hospitals do not like my blood, and I'd feel wrong thinking I know better then they do about what bans and restrictions are safe.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Porter, if someone has been tested and their blood is clean it seems silly to me to still ban them from giving blood. I used to be really gung ho about it but nowadays I'm like, "hey, don't want my blood? Your loss."
As for the restictions on gays and travel I can understand since they can never be sure if someone is telling the truth on the forms and since the donations go into general pools they don't even want the possiblility of contamination.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: Porter, if someone has been tested and their blood is clean it seems silly to me to still ban them from giving blood.
Even given the six-month issue?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It's not just gay men, you know. It's any "male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977." (from the Red Cross website) That would include victims of child molestation, on the face of it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that when you're talking about blood supply, measures taken to keep it safe outweigh any possible of feelings of being excluded.
If the measures are definitely unneeded and this agreed by everyone, then discontinue them, but if there is any question, by all means, let them be.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Was that addressed to me, Ic? I am aware.
I also know that if I had spent two more months in the UK during the relevant time period, I would be ineligible to donate. I also get turned away regularly because my iron is barely below the cutoff (despite the fact that a number of experts in the field have recommended a lower cutoff for women).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think that when you're talking about blood supply, measures taken to keep it safe outweigh any possible of feelings of being excluded.
Agreed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: It's not just gay men, you know. It's any "male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977." (from the Red Cross website) That would include victims of child molestation, on the face of it.
Or men who were raped in prison - that's why they have the "have you been in jail?" question on the form.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It wasn't addressed to anyone in particular. It's just a frustrated rant. I wouldn't trivialize it by calling it feelings of exclusion. The Red Cross and two other blood groups say this is "medically and scientifically unfounded." My personal suspicion is that they know there is no medical merit to this policy, and keep it in place for the sake of not alarming conservative or paranoid elements of the populace into avoiding medical care that could lead to a transfusion of "gay blood."
In a lot of sectors, blood drives are a big deal. I find myself under a lot of pressure to donate when we have one, in order that our school might meet some silly quota, and it's hard to explain why I cannot. I just basically come off looking like I don't give a crap every time. And the thing is, I do care, very much. I like to do the little things I can to help, and this is something I could easily do. But the FDA--not the NIH or the Red Cross, the FDA--doesn't want my blood. I think it's stupid and has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping the blood supply safe. Is there anyone who seriously thinks there is any possibility at all that I have HIV?
But I don't lie about it; if they don't want my blood they're welcome not to have it. I respect their wishes. Doesn't mean I give up the right to call it asinine, uninformed, and counterproductive. Don't trivialize my objections as merely being sour grapes.
(This isn't aimed at any individual; consider it just my vent of something that has quietly bothered me for years.)
[ May 25, 2007, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I would prefer that the FDA be wildly conservative in its estimates of what is safe - especially when it not necessary for anyone to give blood.
You can call it whatever you want. That doesn't make it true. It takes a big leap to assume that the rule is there not because the FDA wants to be absolutely sure the blood supply is safe but instead to embarrass a certain portion population in order to appease paranoid population.
I don't think someone is harmed by not being allowed to give blood. When the goal is to have a safe blood supply, until it is agreed by everyone (not just a few groups) that is it actually IS counterproductive, I'd prefer the rules in place.
I'd hate to have someone infected when it could have been prevented.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ic, would you be comfortable saying that you've been told not to give blood for medical reasons? Let people assume you're anemic or whatever.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I would prefer that the FDA be wildly conservative in its estimates of what is safe - especially when it not necessary for anyone to give blood.
Agreed, for the most part.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'd hate to have someone infected when it could have been prevented.
Definitely agreed.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't think someone is harmed by not being allowed to give blood.
Certainly true. However, given the fact that there has been an insufficient blood supply fairly constantly for quite some time, the question becomes: Are the current rules a big part of the reason WHY there isn't enough blood in our blood banks? Is it possible to keep the supply just as safe, yet allow certain people to donate who cannot under current rules, perhaps alleviating the lack?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I say that I can't for medical reasons. I'm a healthy looking guy, though--overweight, yeah, but not anemic or anything like that. I don't much like the speculation that invites, and I'm not thrilled at having to lie to people because I don't want to lie to the Red Cross.
And it's just ridiculous. I'm not a risk. HIV can be detected within one year. It's been nearly thirty.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ic, you don't actually have to be anemic to not be able to donate. No one but the blood bank thinks my iron is too low.
I hear you on the unwanted speculation, and also on the risk question. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ic, if this is something you really want to do, I would suggest donating directly at a hospital rather than through Red Cross. Many hospitals have donor centers. A "yes" answer on a form isn't automatically a deferral and often, if you explain the circumnstances, it mightn't be a problem.
I had to answer "yes" to the jail question, but when I explained that I shared a cell with a 73 year old nun with two artificial hips, they determined that I wasn't at risk for picking up a disease in jail.
Rivka, my iron is pretty low, too, but I give platelets where it doesn't have to be as high because (most of) the red cells are returned. And I take iron pills.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Really? They don't have to follow those FDA rules? Huh. That's good to know. Thanks.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Forgive me, but now all I'm doing is trying to picture the possible circumstances that would put kmbboots and a 73-year-old nun together in a jail cell. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Protest?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If the blood supply is used only within the hospital, they may have more leeway. If they have sharing arrangements with the Red Cross, as many do, I believe they must follow the FDA guidelines to the letter.
In any case, I would definitely check in advance.
Kate, this happens despite my taking both a multivitamin and iron pills. I'm hoping the (ridiculously expensive) iron amino acid chelate pills really are better absorbed. They certainly don't seem to be causing the digestive distress -- which is both pleasant and a good sign, absorption-wise. Platelets have the same iron cutoff at my local blank as whole blood does. And take a lot longer to donate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Got it in one, Icky. And Sr. Dorothy was no stranger to being arrested. She is a regular recidivist!
The iron level for platelets is a couple of points lower at the hospital where I donate. I just make it. My levels also don't drop much during the donation.
And my platelet count is spectacular.
Plus, it is a little good "downtime". Forced relaxation. I take a little nap, chat with the techs (who all know the intimate details of my life), have some dinner...Nice. I go about once a month if I can.
Rivka, iron pills were the simple solution to my anemia (and the last my doctor tried!). Did you get all the other stuff checked?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I'm sure the people of Meuller would like those pills. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In one of those interesting coincidences, I'm back too.
Hmmm........I wonder.....
Welcome back guys!
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
This is how rumors start... bad Kwea! Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, intravenous drug users are also banned for life. Though I guess intravenous drugs are more generally seen as criminal. I forget, also, if being paid for sex is also a permanent ban type of situation. But being from Haiti isn't a crime, and I think that's also a lifetime ban thing.
I guess there are carriers who've survived 25 and 30 years now, people whose T-cells just aren't vulnerable to the virus.
But since I'm much more worried about mad cow disease, I guess the relative risk of catching HIV, which is treatable, albeit expensive, doesn't scare me as much. I'd say that a gay man who always always uses condoms and gets tested regularly should be able to give blood.
Anyway, I'm sorry the conversation got off on this track. But consider the logic of the mad cow situation. For a while they were trying to restrict anyone who'd been to any part of Europe for over six months, but I think they found that cut too many donors, so they modified it. What are the chances that the American beef supply is clean?
But like I'm always saying, I don't know if I want to be one of the last ones alive when everyone has died of Mad Cow. I mean, like with HIV, there are a few naturally resistant people, mutants, if you will. And maybe the powerful forces that have kept Mad Cow in America quiet are actually following through on cleaning up the problem.
Anyway, you can probably guess that I don't see the medical establishment as something I have to have a clean conscience before. So I'm not really a good judge on the ethics of lying to them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There are a lot of "have you spent x amount of time in Great Britain etc." questions as well. And "have you travelled outside of US/Canada" questions. These, though, are things that need further questions/clarification rather than just an automatic "no" when I donate at the hospital. The Red Cross might not have the time or the qualified personnel to assess the risk, so it might be an automatic "no" for them.
Also, the phlebotomists at the hospital (IME) do a much better "stick".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm not anemic. My iron levels are fine -- as far as anyone but the bloodsuckers are concerned. And even then it's usually barely below the cutoff.
I've been anemic (after my son was born), and I know what that feels like. I feel fine; I just get turned away 1/3 of the time when I try to give blood.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Welcome back, Telp!
I think that my blood is unlikely to make anyone better, so I just keep it to myself.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)