The Red Cross Don't accept Boold From Gay

[Guest Devint6669]

Hey guy's have you see this thing about The Red Cross do not accept boold from us Homosexual.
I found this on the Bangkok Post website
Go look at this link

http://www.bangkokpost.com/multimedia/vdo

What I think about that it's totally unfair because we should all have the right to want to help someone, so because world do not like homosexual, gay, queen or whatever what is their sexual preferences. This is unfair for the one that found love, because we should all have the right to have love in our life, That you love a man or girl what's the difference love is love, I'm telling you just love. The Red Cross Their should ask more this type of question do you have unprotected sex, do you share needles, do you take drugs that kind of question their should be asking…

What do you think guy's…
 

 

[Guest fountainhall]

Before anyone goes over the top on this issue, it’s really important to remember that this has been a highly controversial issue for coming up to three decades now. Anyone who knows the history will recall that once the US Center for Disease Control had identified homosexuals as one of the key target groups for HIV and that tainted blood was one of the primary reasons many non-gays were contracting HIV in the mid-1980s, they tried to bar gays from donating blood. There was then an almighty outcry from the gay community, alleging discrimination and complaining that their rights were being infringed. Whilst all this was going on, more and more non-gay people were being infected from transfusions of tainted blood. Amongst the many who died as a result were Ryan White, the comedian Danny Kaye and the tennis player Arthur Ashe.

Thailand is not alone in banning gays from donating blood. It is general Red Cross policy worldwide and so gays in America are in the same boat. Indeed, the number of countries which permit blood donations from gay men can be counted virtually on the fingers of one hand. Many other countries have a period of deferral. So if you admit to having had sex with another man unless you are in a committed relationship with a partner, you have to wait between one and five years before you can donate.

Let’s remember, too, that gays are not the only excluded groups. Almost 40 years ago, I along with four others was infected with Hepatitis A as a result of contaminated food (the girl who prepared it was found to be a carrier). Although I recovered quite quickly and developed the antibodies within a couple of months, I and my former university friends are absolutely not permitted to give blood. Yet, as I understand it, my blood is not tainted - and the other four were not gay!

Should there still be a ban? Well, that’s another question. A continuing campaign against gays as a group, however, seems illogical, given that in many countries the number of women with HIV is as high as the number of men. What the policies are these cases, I don’t know. But I believe the screening procedures are now far more advanced and can in virtually all cases detect HIV in donated blood prior to its use. However, until every unit of donated blood used in a transfusion is guaranteed to be HIV free, would you be perfectly happy being wheeled into an operating theatre knowing there might just be the remotest possibility of the blood you were about to receive having the HIV virus lurking in it? Be honest!

[Guest scottishguy]

I decided many many years ago that since the world seeks to exclude me from society in a great number of ways (and Devint's example is just one of those) due to my sexuality - then I feel free to disassociate myself from many of its rules and norms.

 

In other words - fuck 'em, and hit back when you can.

 

Ever since some customers having told me to "put the change in the Charity box" changed their minds when they saw it was an HIV Charity Box - I have become quite strident on such matters.

 

Now, whenever I am asked to donate to a Cervical Cancer charity with the clear expectation that I will do so - I tell them I don't donate for diseases usually acquired through str8 people shagging. Sometimes I am even more graphic in my language!!

 

Trust me, after they have got over the shock, that really annoys them!!  

 

What scares Health Authorities is not simply the possibility of infecting blood recipients - in the UK at least they did that routinely for years after the risks were known and screening was available - it's the lawsuits which follow.

[Bob]

Agree largely with Fountainhill's statements. 

 

The Red Cross' job of providing safe blood products to the public (everyone) has been fraught with all kinds of problems and "damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't" decisions over the years and, frankly, I'm not sure if I (had I been sitting on the board of the Red Cross) would have objected to most of their decisions.  If, for example, any specific population (gays, Amish, tall people, or any definable subset) was known to have a substantially higher percentage of HIV infections, I'd sure as hell hope somebody would do whatever is necessary to prevent those issues from becoming part of the public's blood supplies.

 

Perhaps I see the Red Cross as discriminating against blood that has a significantly higher probability of being tainted.  Rather difficult to argue against that proposition in my view.

[firecat69]

Oh Really??  Does the Red Cross refuse to take blood from anyone in the many countries of Africa where most HIV infections are among heterosexuals.

 

They can either screen for it or they cannot.  If they cannot then admit that all Blood may be tainted!!!

[Bob]

Does the Red Cross refuse to take blood from anyone in the many countries of Africa where most HIV infections are among heterosexuals.

 

There are no international Red Cross rules....the Red Cross of each country makes their own determinations as to what standards they'll adopt to ensure that the blood they are providing to the public is safe.  But you knew that, of course, didn't you?

 

I do know that several countries (the US, the UK, most European countries, and at least South Africa for a time) refuse blood donations from people who acknowledge that they are actively engaging in homosexual behavior. As to what standards are applied in Kenya or Somalia or other african countries to homosexuals or straights, I have no clue but perhaps you can google it if you really want to know.

[Guest scottishguy]

I have to support Firecat on this one -  if you present to the UK Blood service as an active Gay Man then there is an automatic assumption that your blood is tainted and you are automatically refused as a donor.

 

You are excluded from donation even if the extent of your sex life is to have had oral sex with another guy and using a condom - in the last 12 months. The question is asked and if you disclose that, you're excluded

 

It's automatic and there is no leeway. The only way round it is to lie, which is obviously irresponsible.

 

On the other hand a UK str8 guy riding 6 women a day without using any condom would face no such automatic exclusion. The question is not even asked.

 

I'm sorry but that just doesn't add up to me - whether its the NHS or the Red Cross.

 

The only difference is I'm not forced to pay the Red Cross to discriminate against me

[Bob]

I'm presuming that you both agree that any outfit distributing blood to the public ought to exercise some efforts/precautions to prevent HIV (as only one example) from being transmitted via the public blood supplies.  Who should we allow to decide what efforts/precautions are the most reasonable?  Us? Doctors? Scientists? (I'm obviously leaving out the clergy and politicians...hehe).

[Guest scottishguy]

It's quite straightforward and nobody has to be the arbiter - just screen every donation!

 

In the UK they say they do this anyway. Yes a very small risk still exists - but is Joe Public really at less risk from the str8 serial bareback-shagger than the gay guy receiving oral sex whilst wearing a condom? 

 

In any case, every medical procedure carries a risk and currently if I have to have any procedure carried out I have to accept the risk or it won't be done.

 

As far as I am aware there is NO evidence to demonstrate that the risk would be significantly greater without the blanket ban on active gay males - it seems to be just a device introduced to calm the anxiety of the general population . If you can find any objective, reliable evidence I'll gladly eat the object I'm currently raising!

 

[Bob]

As you note, they already screen all blood donations for HIV or, perhaps more correctly, they screen for the antibodies that the body later produces in reaction to the HIV.  The problem, I gather, is how to deal with the knowledge that the antibodies doesn't show up in the blood until sometime after the infection/HIV has already entered the bloodstream.

 

Regardless of all that, I'm guessing you probably agree that neither you or I are all that qualified to decide what standards to use.  So just leave it up to some medical or scientific panel?

[Guest scottishguy]

Of course, the "time-lag" in identifying HIV antibodies is not concomitant with the sexuality of the donor! That problem currently exists with ALL donations, so it is not a valid reason to exclude gay men from donation.

 

If I had confidence that the medical or scientific panel made their decisions on the basis of reliable peer-reviewed evidence and that those decisions were not influenced or even over-ridden by politicians who are interested only in what the public perception will be, I'd have no problem agreeing with you Bob.  

 

Trouble is, I have no such confidence.

 

The unfortunate mass perception (i.e, the lowest common denominator) is that "Gays caused AIDS" and they don't want to take the chance of being infused with "gay blood" under any circumstances. That perception will over-rule any evidence to the contrary, because the #1 priority for the Govt and Heath Authorities is that the public have confidence in blood supplies.

 

Whilst I can not change it, I don't have to support it.

[bkkguy]

Who should we allow to decide what efforts/precautions are the most reasonable?  Us? Doctors? Scientists?

 

the risk factors for HIV transmission are related to sexual activity not gender or sexual orientation - receptive unprotected anal sex is a high risk activity regardless of whether the receptive partner is a male or a female, unprotected sex with a large number of unknown sex partners is high risk regardless of the gender or the participants, etc

 

the Red Cross questionnaire focuses on sexual orientation not activity

 

what qualifications do you think people need to be able to see the disjoint here - the questionnaire is fundamentally flawed and if the "doctors" and "scientists" cannot see this then perhaps "we" should have a voice

 

or perhaps leave it to the politicians or social workers because obviously the problem is a cultural one - how to design a questionnaire that people will not be offended by and will answer honestly

 

but let's not let the Red Cross or other organizations get away with being lazy in their form design while they trample on people's rights because they happen to be in someone's idea of a high risk group even if they don't engage in high risk activity

 

bkkguy

[bkkguy]

However, until every unit of donated blood used in a transfusion is guaranteed to be HIV free, would you be perfectly happy being wheeled into an operating theatre knowing there might just be the remotest possibility of the blood you were about to receive having the HIV virus lurking in it?

 

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here - if screening tests are not reliable then no amount of hocus pocus with dubious screening questionnaires is going to have a significant effect on the safety of the blood transfusion supply

 

bkkguy

[firecat69]

The Red Cross is one of the last outfits I would put my trust in.  They accepted millions in donations from the Sandy Disaster and put it in their General Fund rather then distribute it to the Sandy people who could use it.

 

They have proved themselves to be less then honest on many occasions .  

 

Like I said either they can test for it or they can't.  Either accept all blood or admit they are unable to screen for it.  Very Simple!!!

[ChristianPFC]

This topic has been discussed on SGT a while ago.

 

I remember the issue from donating blood in German up to year 2006. The question (from memory, my translation) was if you had sex with another man (or women in case you are female). I could honestly answer with "no". I was gay, but deep in the closet, so I did not have sex with other men despite my homosexuality.

[Guest Devint6669]

Like firecat says this institution is a scam look at Africa like he say and I do believe that.