Thai Red Cross ends separate screening for gay blood donors

[Maple]

Thai Red Cross ends separate screening for gay blood donors

11 April 2008

 

BANGKOK (AFP) — The Red Cross of Thailand said Friday that it would change its screening process for blood donors to address concerns from activists who said the system discriminated against gays.

 

The Red Cross requires donors to fill out a form to assess their risk of disease.

 

Gay-rights activists had complained that one question, which was meant to target people more likely to have diseases transmitted by sex and drugs, had effectively blocked all gay men from donating by only asking about same-sex relations.

 

"We didn't mean to hurt anyone," said Soisaang Pikulsod, director of the Thai Red Cross National Blood Centre. "It was just to ensure the highest possible safety of our patients."

 

The Red Cross will rework the form to include more questions about all types of sexual behaviour, gay or heterosexual, that could increase the risk of diseases such as AIDS, she said.

 

Nathee Teerarojanapong, a gay activist who complained about the questioning, urged the Red Cross to focus on screening out anyone with risky sex and drug habits, instead of singling out gay men and women.

 

"Sometimes gays want to do good things too," he said.

 

In Buddhist Thailand, donating blood is an important way of earning religious merit, which Thais believe will help them in their next life.

 

Soisaang said concerns about infected blood donations grew after the agency found HIV in blood from 500 donors in 2007.

 

The Red Cross notified the donors of their infection, but only one third of them returned for further counselling, she said. Half of them said they were gay and half said they were bisexual, she added.

 

About 28 percent of gay men in Bangkok had HIV in 2005, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

[Guest fountainhall]

At the risk of raising a lot of people's ire, I am always slightly surprised at those who advocate gays' almost automatic right to give blood. As long as there is any risk of contamination of the blood supply from any source, in a nation where, assuming the statistics in the previous post are accurate, over 25% of gay men are infected with HIV, surely the Red Cross has the absolute duty to undertake the most effective screening possible, including ruling certain groups out. I used to give blood in my 20s. Then in my 30s I went down with Hepatitis B. Even though the antibodies appeared in my blood within 3 months and I am therefore not a carrier (unlike around 200 million in Asia alone), I have accepted the medical view that my blood in unacceptable. I have no hang-ups about that and choose to make small donations to the Red Cross instead.

 

I will never forget reading Randy Shilt's absorbing telling of the early history of HIV-AIDS ("And the Band Played On") and how thousands died from infected blood. Not an exact parallel, I agree. I also know nothing about the efficacy of the present-day screening procedures. But if there is even the slightest chance that, say, a young child will be infected with a sexually transmitted illness, I believe each of us has a duty to think three or four times before volunteering to give blood.

[Guest]

I also know nothing about the efficacy of the present-day screening procedures. But if there is even the slightest chance that, say, a young child will be infected with a sexually transmitted illness, I believe each of us has a duty to think three or four times before volunteering to give blood.

 

I would wonder if the screening process is the same in Thailand as it is in the Western countries?

[bkkguy]

As long as there is any risk of contamination of the blood supply from any source, in a nation where, assuming the statistics in the previous post are accurate, over 25% of gay men are infected with HIV, surely the Red Cross has the absolute duty to undertake the most effective screening possible,

 

among that 25% there are probably more Buddhists and men with black hair than there are men that identify themselves as gay - should the Red Cross ban all black-haired Buddhists?

 

when the Red Cross is carrying out its absolute duty to protect the blood supply it should be focusing on high risk behavior not labeling all people of a particular sexual orientation or hair colour as pariahs and a threat to society

 

 

But if there is even the slightest chance that, say, a young child will be infected with a sexually transmitted illness, I believe each of us has a duty to think three or four times before volunteering to give blood.

 

is this a Red Cross list that grants highest concern to young children? if the child is 10 or 15 do we only have to think once or twice? or if it is a gay man from a long term monogamous relationship that gets infected from contaminated blood then we don't have to think about it at all?

 

bkkguy

 

 

 

[Guest fountainhall]

is this a Red Cross list that grants highest concern to young children?

 

Point taken competely. I was merely giving perhaps a somewhat emotional example of what might happen if screening procedures in Thailand are not 100% (and I have absolutely no idea how they compare to other countries). If an individual (gay or straight) has indeed been in a strictly monogamous relationship and is certain that his/her partner has been similarly faithful, then clearly there is no issue. But each of us clearly has a personal responsibility within whatever guidelines are laid down by the blood donation authorities.