Canada lifts lifetime ban on gay men giving blood

[Newsjock]

Source: Toronto Star

The federal blood donor agency is lifting its lifetime ban on gay men giving blood.

Canadian Blood Services announced Wednesday it has received approval from Health Canada to reduce its restriction on men who have sex with men donating blood from indefinitely to five years.

“We recognize that many people will feel that this change does not go far enough, but given the history of the blood system in Canada, we see this as a first and prudent step forward on this policy,” Dr. Dana Devine, vice-president of medical, scientific and research affairs at the federal blood donor agency said in a news release Wednesday.

... Both the United States and some European countries have kept their lifetime bans, while the United Kingdom and Australia have reduced the restriction to a one-year deferral.

Read more: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/05/22/canada_lifts_lifetime_ban_on_gay_men_giving_blood.html

[srican69]

1. Oh no !! A good christian man or women who gets transfused with this blood may catch Teh Gay !

we are doomed

[HERVEPA]

3. Uh, you do realize it was originally put in place due to AIDS, right? (nt)

[Ohio Joe]

5. While that is true...

Reason should have had it removed a long, long time ago. It has been kept in place out of fear and hate.

[HERVEPA]

32. Oh, I agree. Just seemed like the poster I responded to had no idea.

[srican69]

8. yes .. but the standard for accepting blood should be based on a western blot test rather than

the orientation of the donor. Don't you think?

[okaawhatever]

33. No silly, you mostly get gay from being adopted by gay people, watching gay people get married,

watching teletubbies, if you're a child who is nice to another child whose parents may or may not be gay, joining boy scouts, and serving with gays in the military because it might rub off in foxholes.

[naaman fletcher]

2. Interestingly,

I was once denied giving blood because I had eaten beef in switzerland in 2003. I haven't tried since then and I wonder if that is a permanent ban.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. I think spending a significant amount of time in the UK, maybe anywhere in Europe, is a permanent

ban, because of BSE (that's something I've read somewhere, so any potential donors ought to look it up, and not just take my word). Ironically, in the UK they worry about people who've spent periods in some parts of the USA, because of West Nile virus.

[Posteritatis]

26. If I remember correctly even setting foot in the UK is a lifetime ban. (nt)

[uppityperson]

4. Good, about time.

[dbackjon]

6. There is little good about this

Now, a man has to be celibate or only screw women for five years to donate blood.


Really doesn't do anything.

[former9thward]

9. If he really wants to donate ...

He can just answer questions in the way that he can donate.

[dbackjon]

10. So I have to lie to donate blood

Wow - genius idea. Maybe I can lie about being a man, so I can FUCKING GET MARRIED.


Really?

[former9thward]

11. Under the present rules, yes.

If you really want to donate then you can. If you don't want to donate then don't. I think most of the questions that are asked are silly especially since they test 100% of all blood donated. They ask a lot of questions about foreign travel. I do a lot of that. But when I donate (every 2 months) I answer those questions in a way to get through the interview quickly.

Now find someone else to do your high horse act with.

[dbackjon]

12. Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities

I will remember that you get offended by people waniing full and immediate equality

[former9thward]

13. Don't donate.

Now you have the solution to your protest. You can deny your blood to people who need it and that will surely bring the system to its knees. Did you refuse to vote for Obama because he doesn't allow blood to be donated? The rules are set by the Food and Drug Administration. He is their boss and he controls it.

[dbackjon]

14. I am not going to lie to donate.

I lied about who I was for 34 years. Never again.

[former9thward]

15. Fine, no one has asked you to lie.

I just pointed out there is a solution. If you don't want to do it then don't do it. The other solution is do what you can to change the stupid rules.

[Junkpet]

16. That's just ridiculous...

...having to lie or even being asked to lie about who you are is dehumanizing and you are being ignorant. That said, though it's completely ineffective, the rule change does show some sort of progress and also exposes the issue so people see how ridiculous it is.

[uppityperson]

19. To quote what you said, you did not say "lie" but you did say this, which =s lying.

"If he really wants to donate ...

He can just answer questions in the way that he can donate."

Have you had sex with a man within the last 5 yrs? HOW can you answer "in the way that he can donate" if he has without lying? "none of your business"= can't donate. Honesty=can't donate. Refuse to answer=can't donate. Lie= can donate.

[former9thward]

20. You don't know how to read version 2.0.

I never said anyone should or had to lie. I pointed out the solution. If that solution is not for you, fine, don't do it. Suggest something else practical instead of just complaining for the sake of complaining. What is YOUR solution?

[uppityperson]

21. HOW can he answer "in the way that he can donate" if he has had sex without lying?

"If he really wants to donate ...
He can just answer questions in the way that he can donate."

How?

[Junkpet]

25. The solution?

You gave an option...a untruthful, unfair and disingenuous option, at that. An option is not a solution. A solution solves a problem, it doesn't ignore it or work it's way around it in an immoral way.

"Fine, don't do it"...that's a solution?? "Fine, don't do" something that is a social responsibility in order to help others because someone else doesn't think you qualify because of their personal hangups. Ridiculous. That's not a solution.

The solution is to get rid of these unrealistic policies/deferments through boycott, if need be. Sure, you may say that a boycott would hold those who need blood hostage, but who's fault is it when only benefits can be reaped and no harm can come to the eventual lifting of these policies. In reality the people upholding these policies would rather not have to. They know that it makes no difference and that it's purely political/religious/ignorance. So...the solution is to put the rubber to the road and not bend until these policies are changed.

[uppityperson]

18. Sorry, I was reading too fast, missed the 5 yr ban. That is wrong. It should be lifted entirely.

Lie, celibate, women for 5 yrs. It really isn't any of their business if or what you do sexually and should not be discriminated against.

Again, my apologies for not reading it properly.

[dbackjon]

23. All good!!

[gvstn]

22. It has been several years since I studied this issue.

I like a lot of people thought the ban should have been revoked after the quick HIV test was available.

I remember reading that the UK's reasoning was that in a certain time period say 1 year, they had 14 transmissions of HIV traced back to the blood supply. When they went through and found the donors who had provided the blood 7 of the 14 were men who had had sex with men in that past year. So their reasoning was that 50% of HIV transmissions attributed to the blood supply were donations made by men who had had sex with another man. Statistically, it made sense to keep the ban in place. I have no idea where to get back to that information but believe is was from a report by the NHS addressing whether or not to keep the ban in place and was from about 5 years ago.

Anyone have a good link to when and under what criteria the UK has changed its mind? I must have missed that story.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. And the other 7? How did they contract HIV?

Were their "groups" also excluded in a general ban? Also, of the 7 who had sex with men in the past year, did they only have sex with men? If not, or if unknown, then that is some questionable logic.

[gvstn]

27. I really don't remember

I remember the 50% and then a few drug users but can't remember the others. I think 12 of the 14 were confirmed to have broken donating guidelines (lied or didn't know) and the other 2 were considered highly likely to have lied as well.

I think the logic is that if half of cases were traced back to persons who had had male/male sex that by removing the restriction they would open the donating pool to the most likely group to increase the number of infections by those statistics. The abstract I read put it in such a way that it made some sense. Perhaps, I am not explaining it well.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. If you happen to run across it, would you mind shooting it my way?

I'd appreciate it.

[gvstn]

31. I definately will forward something if I find it.

I got the link from an old forum but they revamped and I could never navigate the new interface very well. I'll probably look into this news and will search for that paper during my search. I'll let you know what I find.

I just remember the way they stated it that it made some sense to keep the ban in place until further review. At least from a statistical view point. I, personally think a life time ban makes very little sense. Too many committed gay relationships and wide access to HIV testing for that to be scientifically valid. But I'm not intuitively good at math. I'll try to check out that old forum and see if any posters' names ring a bell to find that old thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. There are other questions asked, some of which are about other HIV risk groups

http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/who-cant-give-blood/

[TrogL]

28. So two men in a committed monogomous relationship who can both pass an HIV test still can't?

Ridiculous.

They've learned not to contact me as I chew them out every time.