Why so shy about Gay Blood, Canada?
Canadian Blood Services says it’s not yet softening its ban on blood from gay men, despite media reports to the contrary. Two years after Canadian Blood Services created a $500,000 grant to research if and when gay men can safely donate blood, not a single scientist has applied to do the work. And officials are baffled by the reluctance. "It’s a fully funded grant opportunity in a very interesting area of research," [says Lorna Tessier, director of public relations for Canadian Blood Services]. Not a single research team has applied for the grant, which is jointly funded by the Canadian Institute for Health Research. Tessier said she doesn’t know why. The research could ultimately open the door for gay men to be added to the donor list."
+1
about 2 years ago
This is unbeleiveable! In a country like canada! They put rights of Muslims before rights of Gays. Proposterous!
about 2 years ago
wtf? What has religion got to do with donating blood … ? o.O What does it have to do with anything? Being Muslim (or Christian for that matter) does not equal being a fundamentalist, same as being gay does not equal barebacking gang banger. Life has shades of grey, you know!
about 2 years ago
Not to worry, in Canada, it’s equal rights to all, the blood thing is only a weird glitch, my uncle can’t even give blood because he lived in Germany in the early ’80′s, something to do with bacteria in the meat that was in the market in Europe during those days.
When you look at both sides of the matter, it’s only normal to be paranoid on that level. Don’t forget that the people at the head of these organizations are on their way out for retirement, and in with the new open-minded people of our generations to come.
Things will change, hell, even the US successfully elected a black-Muslim man. I’m pretty sure that once “George Bush Jr.” (Steven Harper, PM) gets out of office, Canada will go back to it’s original peace-keeping methods.
about 2 years ago
Obama is not Muslim, never has been Muslim. Stop watching Fox News it will rot your mind.
P.S. He was born in the United States, and he is not a socialist nor communist nor Nazi. Any other right wing rumors you need knocked down?
about 2 years ago
P.P.S He is black.
about 2 years ago
Only if you look to his melanin levels, otherwise he’s white.
about 2 years ago
Actual he is bi-racial. Sadly we live in a world that can’t/ doesn’t want to understand shades of grey. You have to be one or the other. He identifies himself/ has accepted the African-American community as the label he feels most comfortable with. But that’s his choice, but arguing over if he is one or the other is just laughable.
about 2 years ago
can we ever definitively label anyone as a one race or ethnicity?
race is not a biological difference, its a social difference. there is no basis for determining race other than our perception of race.
about 2 years ago
I find it interesting that, in america anyway, “black” people are black up until the moment they become successful in something that was previously white-only. Then they become “bi-racial”.
Tiger Woods was black up until be became the highest paid golfer of all time…. then he was suddenly half-asian. Next Obama was black up until he won the election, the next day he was bi-racial.
about 2 years ago
Thats not only in Canada. Here in Germany gay men aren’t allowed to donate blood, too.
about 2 years ago
That’s the case in many countries, the weird thing in Canada is that they don’t even want to do the science about it even ‘tho the money is already there.
about 2 years ago
I think the reason nobody wants to resaerch this is that either:
A) they are conservative and dont want gays donating blood
or
B) they know there is no issue with gays donating blood and think doing a research is a waste of time and money
Personally if i were a Doctor or medical researcher i would feel it was demeaning to my work if i had to conduct a study on something so idiotic.
about 2 years ago
My thoughts exactly, and I would hope that any good doctor or scientist would pick B….
It’s been more then two decades since AIDS and HIV were mainly restricted to the gay community, you’re just as likely to pick it up from straight blood as you are from gay blood….. if not more so. At least most gay people I know get tested regularly no matter what for STDs, straight people I know seem to only get tested when they notice something out of the ordinary.
about 2 years ago
This is the first time I’ve heard about this fund.
Even news stories from 3-6 months ago were staggering statements against gays donating blood; in addition to making avid statements that there were no studies.
The comments and statements were more concerned with offending the people of faith and the so-called bs about the possibility of passing on ‘gay’ genetic offshoots.
about 2 years ago
Gays are only allowed to bleed when some closeted asswipe kicks their ass.
about 2 years ago
Perhaps it is the stigma of working with such patients. If, and I don’t know for certain, the money is somehow connected directly or indirectly with a conservative group of fundamentalists, it would effect a researcher from choosing to do that kind of research there. Who pays for a study and is behind it, is just as important, maybe more so, than the findings in today’s media run world. Just as meteorological studies funded by an energy consortium is immediately suspect of cooking the results, or a study on the primacy of gays as child predators funded by Focus on the Family.
I actually heard the spokesman say that on the radio last week. Perpetrate a lie and repeat it enough, it becomes the truth.
about 2 years ago
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/05/25/14082721.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Allow+donate+blood+researchers/3068546/story.html
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100525/gay-men-blood-donors-100525/20100525?hub=TorontoNewHome
Currently the only mention of the study starts Jan 21. this year. Switching up google wording nets you these 2.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/03/07/blood-gay.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37599992/ns/health-aids/
about 2 years ago
Men who had sex with men after 1977 or ’78 can’t donate blood in Belgium http://www.rodekruis.be/NR/rdonlyres/070AA8D2-FF6F-4F71-94E1-E5AD2AA71EB7/0/brochure_allesvoorveiligbloed.pdf
about 2 years ago
There is one other aspect which never really gets mentioned. The relatonship between the social network systems over the base infection rate HIV.
Where Canada may have X amount of HIV patients listed, the social networks change the scale at which any social network would propegate said base number. The original distribution may have been normal accross the board; but because the gay community is somewhat limited to at best 10% of the population, then the number of times the overlap for sex with a person who has had sex with another person greatly increases.
The system likely runs an exponential ratio from the number of pairings. Once this is taken into account; the ratios may be more accurately relational to the pairings ruling.
Or in other words, if 100k vs. 10k populations where only 100 people are initiating sex to another individual and each of these 100 individuals can have sex 5 times per cycle then the 10k population will not have a virgin to have sex with on their 21st cycle while the 100k population will take a staggering 200 cycles. The propogation of having non-virgin sex is still the same relation except that in this scenerio the value is 10x more likely to have non-virgin sex.
Given that the rate of having sex doesn’t change, then the relation is given weight such that it appears that the 10k population will be more active sexually.
Since this would be a standard C value to the HIV infection rate, a mere linear relation would alter the 44% value to a whopping 4.4% relative ratio to which the difference in infection takes place.
(I’ll gamble and guess that the official science response will be “we have not done a study on this.” and then claim proof adequate that the current ban should remain.)
about 2 years ago
In the US, like most countries, you can’t give blood if you’d had sex with another man since ’78.
I lie. I give blood. Usually, I try to time it so that I give blood about a month after I get tested for HIV, just to be certain that I’m not contaminating the supply.
I prefer to be honest, but giving blood is important enough to lie about.
about 2 years ago
I lied twice back in HS when they did blood drives in my school. Haven’t donated since then though, it’s not worth being made to feel like sh**. I’ll start thinking of donating again when they decide to treat me like a human.
about 2 years ago
Of course, that only works if you’re not having sex after you get tested (assuming you haven’t had sex for a few months before you got tested) and before you give blood, or at least not with anyone other than someone you’ve been sleeping with who you know is negative. I can appreciate the complication of flat out saying yes gay people having sex can donate blood; however, any people having any sex at all represent that same complication regardless of their partner’s sex.
I think they should simply question each potential donor whether they have had sex in the last six months. I don’t think it’s unfair to turn away anyone who’s had sex with more than one partner (or even just one partner who’s had sex with more than one partner) for being at risk, although perhaps as long as you’ve always had protected sex it wouldn’t make a difference (a study might help shed some light on that).
I mean, sure, it sounds a little complicated, but there simply is no more risk with a gay man donating blood than with a straight person. There used to be, but we’re past that point now. Until there’s an inexpensive test that doesn’t rely on an incubation period, there will always be some risk no matter what kind of sex you’re having.
So yes, boys, lie about your sex life to donate blood as long as you know you’re being responsible yourself. But then again, there are probably plenty of straight people who have lots of unprotected sex and don’t give a toss, so go donate anyway. The risk is likely the same.
about 2 years ago
I’m careful. I only sleep with guys who are negative, I get tested regularly, I expect the guys I sleep with to be tested regularly, and I wear a condom when I fuck.
So, careful as can be.
about 2 years ago
Until a year ago in Portugal if a men had sex with other men even 1 time 100 year ago it was illegal to donate blood, now it OK…
about 2 years ago
omg omg that PICTURE
about 2 years ago
I, too, am hearing about this request for the first time. I suspect it’s been so poorly publicized that most researchers have similarly never heard about it.
I am, as well, becoming a bit distraught at the alarming frequency at which many people here jump at the chance to stereotype… anything and everything.
When we indiscriminately lump our opposition in with all others of a similar type, not only do we diminish our credibility, but we become identical to those we admonish.
about 2 years ago
thats ridiculous… they don’t actually think our blood is different do they? thats a fucking old wives tale. do they believe in little red riding hood too?
about 2 years ago
ohh its an HIV thing. they cant give us tests though?
about 2 years ago
They do occassionally bring up the old wives’ tale; They do however tend to place it a bit differently and focus more on the societal reasonings and less of the scientific ones. (Not in the last 3 or so months though. So it may be a bit inaccurate now.)
about 2 years ago
Here in the Netherlands you can’t give blood if you’ve had sex with another man recently. Apparantly gay men are a high risk group,
about 2 years ago
In France if you say you’re gay, you are banned for life from the donor lists. Possibly even if you never had sex… I remember my first time as a donor, I was suprised the nurse asked me if I was homosexual. I said no, as I was still a virgin anyway, all the more with my colleague just next to us who could probably hear the conversation, and I wasn’t so enthusiastic about making an indirect coming-out. Now they ask you if you ever had a male – male sexual intercourse, that seems at least a bit more rational for a question.
The reason for this ban is an alleged higher HIV prevalence with gay men, though the surveys from which the conclusions have been drawn seem somehow biased (especially by the choice of “representative” populations : recruiting gays from gay clubs and other highly active sexual communities, to compare them with the general population, isn’t so fair…)
about 2 years ago
Consider the following scenario:
Scientist does the research.
Canadian gays start donating blood.
Not all gay people are upstanding human beings.
8 year old girl get HIV + Hepatitis C from blood donation by gay guy.
8 year old girl dies.
Media storm + Public uproar.
Canadian Blood Services hide behind study.
Huge lawsuit by girl’s parents.
Defense calls on scientist to testify about study.
Regardless of trial outcome, scientist’s career is tarnished forever.
Now I ask you – would you risk ruining your career and reputation for a mere $500K ?
about 2 years ago
The thing is: This couldn’t happen because blood donations get tested for HIV anyway.
about 2 years ago
I was not trying to be reasonable, I was trying to convey the thought process of any potential scientist who might be tempted by this grant.
about 2 years ago
I would think that in Canada, like here, information about the donor beyond their blood-type isn’t made available to either the patient or the doctors giving it to them.
If that’s the case, there’s no way to know if the hypothetical girl got the diseases from a gay or a straight person…. esp if the blood bank stopped asking about sexuality or sex partners once they were to start allowing such donations.
There’s also the fact that, in spite of the testing on all blood that gets donated, there’s still the occasional infection of HIV or Hepatitis that’s linked to a blood transfusions even though all blood is supposedly heterosexual.
about 2 years ago
Blood donations are anonymous, it would be impossible to determine who had given the blood and therefore they could not trace it back to a gay man.
about 2 years ago
Don’t you give your name when donating ? In France we do, and though the later process is made so as to hide the identity of the donor to the hospital and all the more the blood receiver, it would be possible to track back to the donor in case of major problem. I think such investigations have already been done in the past.
about 2 years ago
The boy in the pic is wicked cute. Looks like he got the hell beat outta him. Poor kid =( I’ll take care of u!
about 2 years ago
Wait. How do they know if a person is gay or not. I mean unless its crazy obvious. They don’t put orientation on driver license or anything up there do they? Looks like if you wanted to save a life (or three)you could hide your gayness or go without kissing your parner in front of everyone. I know the issue is more of equality but if you just wanted to give.
about 2 years ago
If you declare you’re not gay and there is any problem with your blood, then you have engaged your own responsibility in case of problem to the blood receiver. That is, theoritically (because there is a very low probability they would do that, but legally they could), if they investigate and find your blood is contaminated and you lied about not being gay, they could prosecute you for endangering the lives of the blood receivers.
I am personally very reluctant to sign a paper with some lies on it, when other people’s lives are at stake, even if I’m pretty sure I’m perfectly sane and have no risk of contaminating anyone. These kind of false statements could lead you to jail, after all. (even if prosecuting blood donors would be a very bad advertisement for blood donations, so I doubt they would come to this, except in case of a very extended problem – for example in a case where politicians would need scapegoats to escape the people’s anger)
about 2 years ago
Paranoid much? If you donate and they find your blood is positive for HIV, they will tell you about it, not prosecute you. Do you think they go after straight people whose blood is HIV positive until they admit to being gay? Because most of the people donating blood (they assume all) are straight or at least celibate people. Not only would it be a tremendous waste of time, effort, and money, it’d be a violation of your privacy. Stop thinking you’re more likely to have HIV than anyone else — as long as you’re having safe sex, there is little reason to fear and certainly no more reason than straight people should have. This attitude is what empowers homophobes into perpetuating the idea that their fears are rational.
about 2 years ago
Read again what I said : I never said it was likely to get prosecuted. Yet with current laws they can do it.
If during next year presidential election in France, far right party would win (they are more and more popular right now, their candidate could be 2nd or even first in the 1st round), I think they would be quite happy to use gay people as scapegoats, as they do with immigrants, if needed.
In US it’s probably different, though, cause you have a more tolerant culture with minorities and communities, so I guess it wouldn’t be a rewarding political strategy. But in France it could. Or do you think there are no cynical politicians out there ? Right now, we have a political scandal in France, where a dangerous drug has been kept on the market for more than a decade, because of the promiscuity between the pharma lab CEO and the health minister and other government people. What do those corrupted politicians do ? They reject the fault on their subordinates, heath inspectors (equivalent of FDA).
All donors are in a database in France, wouldn’t they use it to save their career if needed ? It may never happen (it sure is the most probable case), but who knows ?
I’m not happy to leave them with such a powerful weapon in their hands, however peaceful they may look right now.
I know what they’ve done to some minorities. A few weeks ago, they’ve just voted a law to expropriate people with mobile housing without indemnity (in fact, expropriated people may have to pay a fine), destroy their mobile houses, only on the base of a local authority decision (no judge needed anymore, no reasonable delay, you are just required to make sure people are not inside when crushing their house). They can destroy their mobile homes even if it is parked on a land they own ! Why this law ? Because there is a Rom community-phobia right now in France (even if most of “Roms” living in France are French in fact). Tomorrow it could be gay men. I don’t want to give our oligarchy any chance to persecute my fellow citizens.
So giving your blood is a noble act, but do it with awareness of the legal gap behind you. A gap may become a trap someday. That’s all I mean.
about 2 years ago
ummmm….isn’t the boy in the pic bloody AND naked?
about 2 years ago
Here in Finland, if you are male, and you have had sex with another male even once in your lifetime, you are banned for life for donating blood.
Women, on the other hand, aren’t even mentioned, they are free to have sex with both genders, and still could donate blood.
That’s racist. Only gay men are banned.
about 2 years ago
You can’t donate blood in the UK if you ‘have ever had sexual intercourse with someone of the same gender’
about 2 years ago
My partner just died an was able to donate his lungs and kidneys despite the coordinators of the program knowing he was in a relationship with another guy. (Australia)