posted
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.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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....
posted
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. Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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. Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Thank you imogen! But really, I'm quite irrational in person. I'm just trying to live up to my big sis. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
I think this is an unfair characterization of the objections to Telperion's actions. It seems designed to label those who think it's wrong as homophobic and shut them up. Frankly, given the wide range of opinion here about homosexuality, I think the people opposed to this act of dishonesty have shown, in general, a great deal of restraint. Can you quote a sttatement implying that gay blood is inherently bad blood? It's late at night, and I'm tired. Maybe I'm just missing what the rest of you are seeing. Maybe I'm not reading well.
-o-
I lean toward agreeing with those who say that lying on forms, and taking it upon oneself to correct for outdated or inappropriate policies, is not appropriate in this case. I'm not completely decided, because I do believe that there are times when honesty is not the best policy. I'm not sure that this is such a time, especially given that the policy in question was decided on by experts in the field who have considered the issue.
I am certain, however, that I agree with those who say that this is NOT civil disobedience. At best, it may be circumventing a stupid rule. But Ghandi and King should not be invoked in defense of this practice, because this is not what they were about.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anybody have a link to the exact phrasing of the questions asked? I too am curious to know what constitutes homosexual sex.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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)?" Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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!
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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. Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
People usually test HIV positive within 3-4 months of exposure. I think 12 weeks is the minimum.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You did the right thing.![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
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. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
But really, I'm quite irrational in person. I'm just trying to live up to my big sis. ![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
