Home› A Moving Train

Canadian Blood Services bans some men from donating blood

small town becksmall town beck Posts: 6,691
edited September 2010 in A Moving Train
We can't get enough people donating blood and they do something so inane?!!

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 ... cy-100909/
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    Well we can just have gay blood everywhere. :roll:
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    fife wrote:
    Well we can just have gay blood everywhere. :roll:
    I heard that the gay is contagious...

    Gay men can't donate blood in the US either...

    Isn't blood screened for things like HIV anyway? The ban seems stupid to me...
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    blackredyellow wrote:
    fife wrote:
    Well we can just have gay blood everywhere. :roll:
    I heard that the gay is contagious...

    Gay men can't donate blood in the US either...

    Isn't blood screened for things like HIV anyway? The ban seems stupid to me...

    Yes blood has been screened for many years. the main arg. that i have heard about this is that HIV can take awhile to show in a blood stream and they are worried that people would get HIV because when the blood was tested it showed negative for HIV.

    now you are wondering "what only gay people get HIV?) and apparently the answer is yes :roll:
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    The U.S. Red Cross also does not take your blood if you have had sex with someone born in Africa, spent x months in the United Kingdom and/or Europe during the Age of the Mad Cow Scare (and the 1980s) and had sex with a prostitute. I was deferred from giving for a year due to visiting Costa Rica (Malaria zone).
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    So now do the ads go
    Blood, its in you to give... given you're not a gay man.
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • small town becksmall town beck Posts: 6,691
    haffajappa wrote:
    So now do the ads go
    Blood, its in you to give... given you're not a gay man.

    LOL I shouldn't laugh but really...

    sad but true.
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    small town beck wrote:
    haffajappa wrote:
    So now do the ads go
    Blood, its in you to give... given you're not a gay man.

    LOL I shouldn't laugh but really...

    sad but true.

    I really like your signature. I was actually just today thinking of putting that as my signature, but I had forgotten you already had it.

    Anyway, I can really see both sides of this issue. Provided the current data still supports gay men being a high risk group for HIV, I think it's reasonable to exclude them from donation just like other high risk groups are excluded. I don't think it's a slight against homosexuality, though I can see where it might seem that way given the prevalence of anti-gay sentiment.
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    scb wrote:
    small town beck wrote:
    haffajappa wrote:
    So now do the ads go
    Blood, its in you to give... given you're not a gay man.

    LOL I shouldn't laugh but really...

    sad but true.

    I really like your signature. I was actually just today thinking of putting that as my signature, but I had forgotten you already had it.

    Anyway, I can really see both sides of this issue. Provided the current data still supports gay men being a high risk group for HIV, I think it's reasonable to exclude them from donation just like other high risk groups are excluded. I don't think it's a slight against homosexuality, though I can see where it might seem that way given the prevalence of anti-gay sentiment.

    while i understand your point, i can't agree. Yes gay males are still the largest group of people having HIV but that snot the point. Woman from endemic countries are also a high risk, stats show that HIV is becoming a youth issue. its not just gay males. also, we have testing for HIV. what should be happening is that blood donated should be tested for HIV at the 3 month and 6 month period. that is what public health in Canada tells people. this is a shot at gay people life style. it enhances the belief that HIV is still a gay man illness when its not.

    this is very concerning for me.
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    fife wrote:
    scb wrote:
    I really like your signature. I was actually just today thinking of putting that as my signature, but I had forgotten you already had it.

    Anyway, I can really see both sides of this issue. Provided the current data still supports gay men being a high risk group for HIV, I think it's reasonable to exclude them from donation just like other high risk groups are excluded. I don't think it's a slight against homosexuality, though I can see where it might seem that way given the prevalence of anti-gay sentiment.

    while i understand your point, i can't agree. Yes gay males are still the largest group of people having HIV but that snot the point. Woman from endemic countries are also a high risk, stats show that HIV is becoming a youth issue. its not just gay males. also, we have testing for HIV. what should be happening is that blood donated should be tested for HIV at the 3 month and 6 month period. that is what public health in Canada tells people. this is a shot at gay people life style. it enhances the belief that HIV is still a gay man illness when its not.

    this is very concerning for me.

    Although gay men are not the only group with HIV, you just said that they are still the highest risk group. Didn't someone already point out that ALL the highest risk groups for disease are excluded from donating blood? And I don't know enough about blood banks or HIV testing, but do they really keep all the blood around for at least 6 months before using it, and is that long enough for accurate results?

    If it was their intention to take a shot at gay people, wouldn't they also ban gay women from donating? And do you think they're trying to take shots at all the other groups they exclude from donation? I really think they're just trying to do what they feel is best to protect their blood supply and I, for one, am grateful for it (and I'd bet there are plenty of HIV negative gay men who might receive blood who are grateful for it as well). That sucks if it has the effect of enhancing the belief that HIV is just a gay men's illness, and I think it says a lot about our society if we take it that way. But I don't think they should compromise the blood supply just so people don't get the wrong idea.
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    scb wrote:
    fife wrote:
    scb wrote:
    I really like your signature. I was actually just today thinking of putting that as my signature, but I had forgotten you already had it.

    Anyway, I can really see both sides of this issue. Provided the current data still supports gay men being a high risk group for HIV, I think it's reasonable to exclude them from donation just like other high risk groups are excluded. I don't think it's a slight against homosexuality, though I can see where it might seem that way given the prevalence of anti-gay sentiment.

    while i understand your point, i can't agree. Yes gay males are still the largest group of people having HIV but that snot the point. Woman from endemic countries are also a high risk, stats show that HIV is becoming a youth issue. its not just gay males. also, we have testing for HIV. what should be happening is that blood donated should be tested for HIV at the 3 month and 6 month period. that is what public health in Canada tells people. this is a shot at gay people life style. it enhances the belief that HIV is still a gay man illness when its not.

    this is very concerning for me.

    Although gay men are not the only group with HIV, you just said that they are still the highest risk group. Didn't someone already point out that ALL the highest risk groups for disease are excluded from donating blood? And I don't know enough about blood banks or HIV testing, but do they really keep all the blood around for at least 6 months before using it, and is that long enough for accurate results?

    If it was their intention to take a shot at gay people, wouldn't they also ban gay women from donating? And do you think they're trying to take shots at all the other groups they exclude from donation? I really think they're just trying to do what they feel is best to protect their blood supply and I, for one, am grateful for it (and I'd bet there are plenty of HIV negative gay men who might receive blood who are grateful for it as well). That sucks if it has the effect of enhancing the belief that HIV is just a gay men's illness, and I think it says a lot about our society if we take it that way. But I don't think they should compromise the blood supply just so people don't get the wrong idea.

    too answer your question i think it is wrong that they would ban anyone for no known reason from donating something that is needed. I know quite a bit about HIV, i have work in the HIV field for the past 7 years. when you go for an HIv test, all doctors are supposed to book 2 HIV test. 1 test is booked 3 months after initial contact meaning interaction with blood. Most people develop detectable HIV antibodies within 6 to 12 weeks of infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months and there are nearly always very particular reasons for antibodies developing so late such as other auto-immune disorders. It is exceedingly unlikely that someone would take longer than 6 months to develop antibodies. the 2nd test is booked for 6 month after contact for those rare cases. Canadian blood services should be holding all blood for those 6 months therefore not needing to ban gay people from giving blood.

    If they are not testing all blood to this standard than we have bigger issues because while yes gay man are still a high risk group ANYONE can get HIV.
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    http://www.avert.org/testing.htm

    great website that talks about HIV testing. everyone should get tested.
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    fife wrote:
    too answer your question i think it is wrong that they would ban anyone for no known reason from donating something that is needed. I know quite a bit about HIV, i have work in the HIV field for the past 7 years. when you go for an HIv test, all doctors are supposed to book 2 HIV test. 1 test is booked 3 months after initial contact meaning interaction with blood. Most people develop detectable HIV antibodies within 6 to 12 weeks of infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months and there are nearly always very particular reasons for antibodies developing so late such as other auto-immune disorders. It is exceedingly unlikely that someone would take longer than 6 months to develop antibodies. the 2nd test is booked for 6 month after contact for those rare cases. Canadian blood services should be holding all blood for those 6 months therefore not needing to ban gay people from giving blood.

    If they are not testing all blood to this standard than we have bigger issues because while yes gay man are still a high risk group ANYONE can get HIV.

    Thanks for the info. Now we just need someone with knowledge of blood banks to tell us about their procedures.

    So are you saying that the Canadian Blood Services (and any other blood banks that don't accept blood from gay men) made this policy as a result of anti-gay sentiment?
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    scb wrote:
    fife wrote:
    too answer your question i think it is wrong that they would ban anyone for no known reason from donating something that is needed. I know quite a bit about HIV, i have work in the HIV field for the past 7 years. when you go for an HIv test, all doctors are supposed to book 2 HIV test. 1 test is booked 3 months after initial contact meaning interaction with blood. Most people develop detectable HIV antibodies within 6 to 12 weeks of infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months and there are nearly always very particular reasons for antibodies developing so late such as other auto-immune disorders. It is exceedingly unlikely that someone would take longer than 6 months to develop antibodies. the 2nd test is booked for 6 month after contact for those rare cases. Canadian blood services should be holding all blood for those 6 months therefore not needing to ban gay people from giving blood.

    If they are not testing all blood to this standard than we have bigger issues because while yes gay man are still a high risk group ANYONE can get HIV.

    Thanks for the info. Now we just need someone with knowledge of blood banks to tell us about their procedures.

    So are you saying that the Canadian Blood Services (and any other blood banks that don't accept blood from gay men) made this policy as a result of anti-gay sentiment?

    I can say for certain that its because of anti-gay sentiment but i do feel that it is. its either that or a lack of knowledge around HIV and AIDS which is very scary to me. What other reason could they say?
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    fife wrote:
    scb wrote:
    fife wrote:
    too answer your question i think it is wrong that they would ban anyone for no known reason from donating something that is needed. I know quite a bit about HIV, i have work in the HIV field for the past 7 years. when you go for an HIv test, all doctors are supposed to book 2 HIV test. 1 test is booked 3 months after initial contact meaning interaction with blood. Most people develop detectable HIV antibodies within 6 to 12 weeks of infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months and there are nearly always very particular reasons for antibodies developing so late such as other auto-immune disorders. It is exceedingly unlikely that someone would take longer than 6 months to develop antibodies. the 2nd test is booked for 6 month after contact for those rare cases. Canadian blood services should be holding all blood for those 6 months therefore not needing to ban gay people from giving blood.

    If they are not testing all blood to this standard than we have bigger issues because while yes gay man are still a high risk group ANYONE can get HIV.

    Thanks for the info. Now we just need someone with knowledge of blood banks to tell us about their procedures.

    So are you saying that the Canadian Blood Services (and any other blood banks that don't accept blood from gay men) made this policy as a result of anti-gay sentiment?

    I can say for certain that its because of anti-gay sentiment but i do feel that it is. its either that or a lack of knowledge around HIV and AIDS which is very scary to me. What other reason could they say?

    Well they say they think it's a public health issue, right? You said it shouldn't be, but that doesn't mean they don't think it is.
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    Thanks for the info. Now we just need someone with knowledge of blood banks to tell us about their procedures.

    So are you saying that the Canadian Blood Services (and any other blood banks that don't accept blood from gay men) made this policy as a result of anti-gay sentiment?[/quote]

    I can say for certain that its because of anti-gay sentiment but i do feel that it is. its either that or a lack of knowledge around HIV and AIDS which is very scary to me. What other reason could they say?[/quote]

    Well they say they think it's a public health issue, right? You said it shouldn't be, but that doesn't mean they don't think it is.[/quote]

    if they believe that its a public health issue than they need more education around HIv AIDS and other STI. look at the article again. they talk like blood from a gay man is death.
Sign In or Register to comment.