Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Blood drive posters: 'No faggots allowed'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 11:45 AM
Original message
Blood drive posters: 'No faggots allowed'
"Radical queer provocateurs" in Portland, Maine, Infoshop News reports, have kicked off a parodical poster campaign to protest the treatment of gay and bisexual men who wish to donate blood.

Any man who has engaged in any sexual activity with another man since 1977 is barred from donating blood in the United States. The policy, adopted by the Food and Drug Administration in 1983, has been upheld despite repeated challenges from the community at large. Gay and bisexual men, regardless of current HIV status, are automatically classified as "high risk" individuals for the purpose of determining blood donation eligibility.

"Instead of using blood drives as an opportunity for free, anonymous, confidential, non-compulsory HIV testing for all people, since all blood entering hospitals, research labs, blood banks, etc must be tested anyways," the article charges, "the American Red Cross has chosen to exclude already marginalized populations under the guise of public health and safety."

The American Red Cross has in the past fought the FDA to ease the blanket restriction. A proposed change in September of 2000 would have modified the policy to allow a gay or bisexual man to donate blood after abstaining 12 months, in line with its policy towards commercial sex workers and intravenous drug users. While the Red Cross' opposition to that change, breaking with the American Association of Blood Banks and America's Blood Centers, prevented the change from taking place, it told the FDA's Blood Products Advisory Committee in March of 2006 that the blanket ban was "no longer medically and scientifically warranted."

"The continued requirement for a deferral standard seen as scientifically marginal and unfair or discriminatory by individuals with identified characteristics may motivate them to actively ignore the prohibition and provide blood collection facilities with less accurate information," the Red Cross warned the FDA in a joint statement. Regardless, the FDA reiterated the policy in May of 2007.

http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/Blood_drive_posters_No_fa...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Until this policy is scrapped, I won't give blood.
I'd like to, but I refuse to lie about myself. This policy is beyond absurd at this point. One hopes that the FDA in an Obama Administration will repeal this once and for all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. I guess the AIDS you get from gay sex is yuckier than the sex you get from sharing a heroin needle?
Because Gay-AIDS turns you gay, but Heroin-AIDS just makes you want to watch Gilligan's Island and cry all day long, and Sex-Worker-AIDS just makes you carry a giant duffel bag around while wearing high-heels.


:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creideiki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Not to mention health-care workers
They're also "high risk".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meeker Morgan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Will you accept blood from the Red Cross if you need it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuiderelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. What's your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meeker Morgan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. That when you really need them, they do not discriminate. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuiderelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. But they need gay men's blood, and THEY discriminate, which means they DO discriminate
against everyone, when they run short of blood. Perhaps if EVERYONE stopped giving blood, then they would be forced to change their policies. It's insane that they are willing to risk people's lives because of this bigotry. Especially when they are supposed to test all blood for HIV anyway, then it's very plainly nothing but bigotry that makes them refuse gay men's blood.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. "... in line with its policy towards commercial sex workers and intravenous drug users..."
Edited on Thu Jul-17-08 11:52 AM by IanDB1
The American Red Cross has in the past fought the FDA to ease the blanket restriction. A proposed change in September of 2000 would have modified the policy to allow a gay or bisexual man to donate blood after abstaining 12 months, in line with its policy towards commercial sex workers and intravenous drug users.
http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/Blood_drive_posters_No_fa...

That sounds damned reasonable to me.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glowing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. The red cross is supposed to check everyone's blood for contaminants..
so, all of those Pre-questions are stupid anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. We're going to find out that there's some weird virus that's been in the blood supply for years...
... and we won't know anything about it until people start dying.

Maybe it's a weird prion disease you only get from eating goose-liver pate, or that you only get from beluga caviar.

Or maybe there's a chemical in the blood supply that you only get from a preservative used exclusively in the upholstery of Gulfstream Private Jets.

We'll just have to wait and see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. That already happened, duh. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SacredCow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. One of my straight friends gives regularly...
and always (loudly) vocalizes how stupid and antiquated this rule is. The last time, he went a little further and when asked if he had paid for sex, his response was, "Does dinner and a movie count?" I'm sure they probably disposed of his blood....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. The "reasonable" change is to compare all gay and bisexual men with prostitutes and druggies?
:wow:

Straight black women are the fastest growing segment of America to have HIV. At current rates, straight black women will be just as likely to have HIV infection as gay and bisexual men. Try this on for size:

Straight black women are banned from giving blood unless they had abstained from sex for the past 12 months, in line with regulations regarding commercial sex workers and intravenous drug users.

Can you imagine the outcry over that one?

But, of course, it is all so different when discussing men who have sex with men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. SO Ludicrous, But I Give Blood Anyway, And Willingly Lie.
I refuse to stop saving lives because some asshole bureaucrats with their heads up their asses force me to compromise my dignity in the process. Those lives are worth more than my dignity, and they're worth a hell of a lot more than the Red Cross' antiquated, homophobic bullshit.

However, that's a personal decision, and I can certainly understand those who refuse to compromise who they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I have to do that.
Because not every male in my sexual history is totally straight. I've never been exposed to anything, my testing is all clean, and while I'm all about making a statement, I'm an HLA donor, and my blood is used to do extra-close matches for cancer patients and others who have required multiple transfusions, so I'm not going to risk those recipients suffering due to ass-covering homophobic stupidity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. .
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
13. I'm straight, and can't donate anymore because they screened
my blood and found the antigens for Hep A,B&C. I was in demand because I had Hep B antigens and they are worth some money in the hematological scheme of things so they can make Hep B vaccine. Hep C knocked me right out of the system, in fact, although I was a regular donor, I am kind of glad they found it. I would be mortified to find out I had passed the disease on to someone else and possibly killing them.

About this proactive stance the RC has come up with, I see it more as a publicity situation, even though all blood is screened for various items, to include, but not limited to Hepatitis, HIV and active AIDS, there could be serious consequences should the public become frightened to the point of hysteria about blood donations.

I do not agree it is the correct approach, many GLB individuals are entirely devoid of any blood-borne pathogen, and their willingness to save lives by donating should be encouraged, not denied. In fact, since all blood is screened anyway, it could help to save lives, mainly the donors who are infected and don't know it. By early detection, I think many lives could be made better and saved.

I know of a few gay & straight men and women here on DU that have HIV/AIDS. They are living fine lives, even somewhat better ones knowing they have the disease. After all, knowledge brings with it a great power. A few work in clinics and other institutions that help victims through some very trying times, they have worked tirelessly to perform virtual miracles for their clients. Thier compassion and empathy cannot be overstated.

All things considered, I think the RC is handling this poorly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I can't donate anymore either due to the presence of the antigens as well -
these came about as the result of me receiving the HBV vaccine years before. I would never have taken it if I knew it would prevent me from donating and helping others down the road...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. It still bothers me when they have Blood Drives, but if it comes
down to passing it on to another, well, I guess I'm stuck in the corner w/that.

Not like I have active Hep B or C, it is the antigens alone that make my blood or plasma essentailly worthless, except to me... :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhythm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-19-08 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
19. I'm permanently deferred from donation because of my ex's false-positive HIV test 20 yrs ago
My ex and i used to donate blood regularly, until there was a mix-up once, and his 'test' vial came back HIV+. He and i both went to our personal physician and had an assortment of tests done at different labs, which all came back negative. Nevertheless, the Red Cross was not willing to either accept the documented word of these other labs as proof of their mistake, nor were they willing to do retests themselves.

Now both he and i are on their 'permanent deferment' list, which bugs the shit out of me, because i know darn well that i am healthy, and that there is always a need for O- blood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC