We’re on the record arguing against blood donation policies than ban men who have sex with other men. Sure, they’re discriminatory, but also stupid: Screening techniques can weed out HIV-tainted blood, and there’s a risk of accepting bad blood from straight men and women, too. So we’re perfectly fine with little white lies when donating, accidentally forgetting to check the box that says you sleep with other dudes. But when Canadian man Kyle Freeman tried doing that, repeatedly, Canadian Blood Services decided to sue. And now he’s suing back.
Canadian officials says Freeman lying is what’s against the rules — and even if he does think the no-gays policy is discriminatory, he’s breaking the law by not being forthcoming. (CBS’ original suit against Freeman dates back to 2002.) Not quite, counters Freeman, who maintains the lifetime ban on gay men donating blood not only doesn’t make scientific sense, but also violates his constitutional rights to equal treatment.
At the heart of Canadian Blood Service’s claim is whether a blood donor has a duty to tell the truth about his personal and sexual history — whether or not he thinks the questions are unnecessary or even discriminatory, lawyer Sally Gomery said.
The court needs to decide if Freeman’s rights were violated and, if so, whether that’s a defence for negligent misrepresentation.
Gomery argued that if Freeman believed the policy was wrong, he should have fought it.
“What that individual cannot do is take the law into his own hands,” she said.
Freeman, who is not HIV positive, admits he lied when asked if he’s had sex with another man — even once — since 1977.
He donated blood 18 times but the lawsuit focuses on four donations between 1998 — when CBS was formed after the Krever Inquiry into tainted blood — and 2002.
That’s when the agency linked him to anonymous e-mails stating he had lied when giving blood.
Freeman argues the question excludes gay men because they’re gay – not because they’ve engaged in behavior that puts them at high risk for getting HIV and other diseases.
Instead, he argues, CBS could ask people if they’d had unprotected sex, then exclude them from donating during the three months it would take for HIV to be detected in their blood if they were infected.
So why does Freeman — who wants $250,000 in damages — keep donating blood? Because he’s been tested, he says, and benefiting society with his blood is more important to lying to officials. We tend to agree. If you also agree, we suggest commenting anonymously, lest Canadian officials get a hold of your Internet trail.
Matt Deco
Could you imagine if someone stated, “we are no longer accepting African-American blood because they are a higher risk group for HIV.”
They would have 15 lawsuits from the moment the words exited their mouths.
It’s complete discrimination. If you have proof you don’t have HIV then the reasoning behind not accepting your blood is complete discrimination.
rs
While the logic behind a lifetime blood ban on men who have sex with men is a bit shakey, there is some logic to it. Yes, while HIV testing can determine if someone is HIV-infected, standard testing does have a 4-12 week window period after infection where someone who is HIV-positive could test negative. There are tests that can shorten that window to as little as 7 days, but they are much much more expensive, not routinely performed, not offered to those seeking HIV tests, and are poorly understood by most health professionals. So, why ban MSM from donating blood? Because there are so many potential blood donors out there that rather than increasing the risk (even if by a small bit) that someone could contract HIV from receiving a blood donation from an undiagnosed member of a high-risk group (and lets not kid ourselves, we are a high-risk group. It’s not an assignment of blame. African-Americans are at high risk for sickle cell anemia, fair skinned people are at risk for skin cancers, and by a combination of politics, behavior, institutional decisions, and bad luck MSM, African-Americans, and injection drug users are at higher risk for HIV) or adding expensive testing to insure that donated blood is HIV-negative, they would rather a blanket ban. No, it is not the best decision, but it does have a basis.
I agree that it is discriminatory, but rather then rally to allow gay men to donate blood I think it’d make more sense to use that energy to a) expand HIV testing so that EVERYONE routinely gets tested and actually knows their HIV status, or b) encourage the Red Cross to make their policies consistent and ban blood from all sexually active adults or people who have used injection drugs and let them deal with the political fall-out. While that second suggestion is somewhat nonsensical, if the goal is to ensure the safety of the blood supply then that really would be the way to do it.
ChickenTetrazzini
fuck them i’ll keep my blood in my body
Canuck
If you’re interested in this story, you simply must hear the interview on this morning’s The Current (CBC Radio). It’s available at http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2009/200909/20090930.html
There are ways to ensure the safety of the blood supply that don’t discriminate contrary to the constitutional protections in the Canadian Charter of Rights. It’s incumbent on the government to infringe on citizens’ rights to the minimal extent possible, which is not currently the case.
Alexander
This is simply a relic of the times when HIV was the “gay flu”. To be fair, I’m only 23, so I did not personally experience the epidemic, but I understand that the panic surrounding the outbreak was pretty fierce. That being said, this ban, today, is useless. I know that the Red Cross does basic screening of all blood it takes in for the very reason of detecting things like hepatitis and HIV, and the do it with all blood. This IS discrimination, but I don’t think it’s hateful (just ignorant) and is an obvious application of a misguided “it ain’t broke, so don’t fix it” mindset.
jason
I’m glad that the Blood Bank is being sued. The Blood Bank has perpetuated a homophobic discrimination against men who have sex with men. A heterosexual male who has sex – including anal sex – with female prostitutes on a regular basis gets away with no ban. Talk about double standards!!!
Of course, and what about promiscuous women who enjoy anal sex? They can go and have as many male partners as they wish and the Blood Bank gives them a pass!!!!
The Blood Bank needs to be put on notice that we won’t tolerate the unequal application of standards.
Kierken
Listen to this, you’ll get a better idea of the situation:
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/
If you’re listening after the 30th, go to the episode from wednesday.
Kierken
They also discuss the Iraqi treatment of gays and lesbians.
Roger
This is crazy and archaic. Down with the ban!
Everyone’s right: it doesn’t make “scientific” sense, and it seems like someone should have realized a long time ago that this rule is meant to be discriminatory, not preventative.
damon459
This ban is no different from the ban that use to be in place against blacks because of their higher rates of syphilis. I’m on the list of people who can’t donate because I answered the questions honestly, because of that I refuse to except donated blood from the donation pool. I instead have chosen to alert my doctors if I need blood to draw my own in advance of surgery or simply give me saline which is effective in many cases.
strumpetwindsock
It’s not surprising they are being so boneheaded about this.
After all, CBS was created after the Red Cross was found guilty of distributing tainted blood. The government took the whole blood donation regime away from them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Blood_Services
I’m not saying I think they are right; this is a ridiculous screening rule that isn’t based on good science, and should be changed. I’m just not surprised.
Two things. There is no paid blood donation in Canada.
Secondly, Héma Québec oversees blood donation in Québec (which is one quarter of the entire country). They have a similar gay ban. If this regulation falls in a charter fight they would likely also be forced to change their policy, even though it doesn’t look like they are a party to these lawsuits.
That said, I think him suing for $250,000 damages is ridiculous. Sue to change the law and cover court costs, but any punitive winnings will just come out of the taxpayers’ pockets.
That litigious nonsense should have no place here.
J. Clarence
I agree that the ban doesn’t make any sense and should be a taken down; however, I’m confused how this “violates constitutional rights to equal treatment.” I don’t know how the Canadian constitution is written and what it regards as equal treatment but his argument seems like a long stretch.
There clearly cannot exist a ‘right’ to donate blood for everyone, as the blood bank clearly has to screen certain people out for health reasons. Now whether or not who the blood bank chooses to prohibit from donating blood is at all scientific is different story. In our country that is a policy matter and there are ways to effect policy rather than being deceitful.
Plus what does him lying do to change the policy? Beside pointing out the idiocy of the policy it does little to change it. He could more effectively coral other gay people to put pressure on the Canadian agency to come to their senses.
Chuck
About 8 years ago I was giving plasma for some $$ and had done so about 5 or 6 times. I wasn’t having sex at the time and had tested negative for years, so felt there wasn’t a problem. One day, I’m laying on the table about ready to get stuck, and a group of people came to my table and asked me to follow them. One of the workers there was a lesbian, and her partner sang in the gay chorus that I was in. She had told them I was gay. Talk about discrimination! She had never seen my have sex; a person can be gay without having sex with men (refer to priests), so I was kicked out based on a label, not based on activity!
strumpetwindsock
@J. Clarence:
I think there’s something in the linked Xtra story about a sperm donation challenge which failed, so it’s not a given that this will be struck down.
But it’s really two issues – that the policy is discriminatory, and more importantly that it doesn’t properly screen a out a lot of people who may have been exposed.
J. Clarence
@strumpetwindsock: I absolutely agree, like I said aside from pointing the idiocy of the policy lying does little else. But to suggest that it is discrimination for the blood bank to prohibit, i.e. discriminate, against certain people is crazy. I think you could challenge the merits of the ban without filing a lawsuit.
scott ny'er
@Chuck: That evil Lesbo!!!
Feeling Unpatriotic Today
The two week HIV “viral” test has existed for a long time, and right now they are doing it for free in Vancouver rather than just the 3/6 month tests.
It determines to 99% accuracy whether or not you’ve been infected with HIV prior to two weeks earlier.
There is NO REASON why the Canadian Blood Services should not be running this on EVERY APPLICANT. Why would you fucking trust anybody with something this sensitive? Aside from how idiotic it would be for anybody who’s had unprotected sex to give blood without being asserted of their status via blood testing, the testing when you give blood should be looked at as it’s own blood test, as some people are just stupid enough to not know.
if this is already being done, then yet again I’m ashamed to be a Canadian citizen, although I know this isn’t solved in the US either. If it isn’t being done, then yet again, I’m ashamed to be a Canadian citizen.
Hopefully this fag wins his court battle and sets worldwide precedence.
Fitz
String me up, but I was there in the early 80’s… and this ONCE made sense. But things have changed. The reluctance to change it is based on fear and fear of the public rejecting blood. Law suites are not going to help.
Cam
No. 12 · J. Clarence said..
I agree that the ban doesn’t make any sense and should be a taken down; however, I’m confused how this “violates constitutional rights to equal treatment.” I don’t know how the Canadian constitution is written and what it regards as equal treatment but his argument seems like a long stretch.
______________________________________
Under Canadian law it is illegal to use somebody’s sexuality as an excuse to discriminate. He has a decent case. Again, he could make the argument that this ban is just as dumb as a ban on women from large cities not being allowed to give blood because they may not know if their partner is a drug user or on the DL etc… If it hits the Canadian Supremem court I don’t know if he’ll win the money but the law could very likely get struck down.
AxelDC
The Canadian argument is bogus. They should be screening this blood chemically for contaminants, regardless of the donors sexuality or sexual history. Do they expect a guy on the DL to tell them the truth about their sex history? How many heterosexuals are HIV+?
Should he have lied? No, but Canada shouldn’t be relying on donor’s testimony and a blatantly discriminatory policy to protect its citizenry from infection.
As far as the Charter of Rights, I believe the gay marriage case before the SC pretty much settled that this would be a violation. I’m not Canadian, but I spent 2 years there.
Steven
Guess what morons – This guy is infected with numerous STDs.
Feeling Unpatriotic Today
prove it or it didn’t happen
link an article, Steven
Logi
THERE IS DEFINITELY A SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR EXCLUDING GAY MEN FROM GIVING BLOOD.
How convenient is it that you left out the important fact that MANY GROUPS- not just gays- who are in high risk categories cannot donate blood. This is not a matter of human rights, this is a matter of minimizing risks. What if there is a false negative test? Then that HIV+ blood goes into the pool of ”good blood” and violates a healthy person’s safety.
Why take this risk?
Gays are not being discriminated because of sexuality, anyone belonging to a high risk group is simply being asked to be left out; that goes with intravenous drug users, and people who lived in Subsaharan Africa (like my parents).
Would someone be foolish enough as to say ‘There is no medical justification to exclude junkies from donating blood’?
Why not address the core issue of lowering HIV/STD rates in gay men; if there is any discrimination it has been at the level of neglecting the gay demographic’s public health needs.
Lesbians are aloud to donate blood; this is logical because the policy of excluding gay men has nothing to do with disenfranchising ppl based on sexuality, rather it has much to do with MINIMIZING RISKS!!!!!
BY THE WAY TO THE EDITOR OF QWERTY,
How pathetic and intellectually dishonest of you is it that you conveniently omitted the fact that your ‘victim’, Kyle Freeman, ACTUALLY TESTED POSITIVE FOR advanced SYPHILLIS IN 2002. This is who you want people to get donated blood from??
“The discovery Mr. Freeman had syphilis, a sexually transmitted disease that can damage the heart, brain and eyes if left untreated, was made only after Canadian Blood Services screened his donated blood.
He had been tested for diseases previously and wasn’t found to be sick, court heard, but by the time he gave blood he had been infected”
-> that was from the National Post, Canada.
http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2069573
How selfish!
His desire to spread his blood, does not trump the rights and lives of innocent people who rely on the Canadian Blood Services.
Why is QWERTY CHAMPIONING THIS SELF-IMPORTANT MEGALOMANIAC, I’M SURE WORTHIER CAUSES COULD BE ADDRESSED?
Sharky
Hmmm…anyone else have a problem with the phrases “HIV-tainted” and “bad blood” found in the first paragraph? Tainted and bad, really? Those are pretty insensitive and negative connotations that Queerty is tossing around. Those poorly chosen words reveal a lot about how the writer of this piece truly feels/thinks about HIV and people living with HIV.
The blood isn’t BAD (perhaps unusable would have been a more neutral, appropriate and accurate word?)and neither are people with HIV bad people because they have “bad” or “tainted” blood. Infected could have replaced tainted without making people with HIV feel like crap.
Careful with your words…
nc m
I really despise the behaviour of ‘playing the gay card’ just as much as I despise the playing of any kind of card, regardless of type (race, gender, etc.). This suggests to me an eagerness to jump to the conclusion they feel justifies their feelings of being downtrodden or discriminated against. I feel he should own up to his own feelings about this, regardless of whatever else he does.
I also live in Canada and I’ve never given blood because I personally agree with the intent of this rule. I want to give blood and I would jump at the chance to do so, if it could be done safely. I also know that even though I’m in a monogamous LTR, there are safety reasons for me not to donate. Within the last year I had a body piercing redone (yes, at a very reputable place and by a specific reputable piercer whom I trust). IIRC, the Red Cross also filters based upon piercings within recent months. Don’t quote me on that, because I don’t remember the time frame, whether six months or a year. This is still a risk factor that cannot be ignored. Breaking skin = risk vector, even in a sterile environment.
Some kink activities are also risk vectors not even related to MSM. (FYI, these are sensory activities, not sexual. I want to make this clear that these are ‘play’ activities enjoyed throughout all gender/orientation groups and aren’t related to sexual activities.) Even if I could demonstrate that everything I do is in a sterile space and is done without exchange of any fluids, the rules exist to minimize that risk. It doesn’t matter why I do it or with whom, or even if I do it by myself. For them to relax that rule simply to solve some irritating double standards would effectively remove a sizable portion of the safety net that’s there to protect us as a whole from risk vectors to which blood recipients can’t knowingly consent.
tangent:
I also understand that there are still those who will lie about their history. That’s why the current screening rules are there. Some will slip through, and they have this as a way to filter cases such as those. I agree with setting a limit to discourage more of the same, even if it does look like it singles me out.
/tangent
If I were to blame this on a rejection of my sexuality, I’d probably be showing more about my insecurities. Maybe he’s right to feel the authorities are lying, especially with some of our reminders of corruption over the last decade. But as Logi says, he’s had a previous history of infection. And the guy was caught LYING to them. Eighteen times. Maybe that’s the real reason he feels the authorities are too.
Or maybe it’s all about entitlement. Nobody has the guarantee never to be offended by something or someone. If he’s looking for this guarantee, he’ll be disappointed a long time.
Noelley B
Straight ladies who have ever had sex with a bisexual man are also banned.
WILL
Let me ask you this!
And I do not want to hear the statement it’s neither here nor there!
It’s either a yes or no answer by people in the end that counts!
If your a christian then use your chrisitian ideology if not listen to this and do not dare be prejudice!
If a very young boy is raped by a man at a young age…Yet his blood is clean because he’s been tested various times throughout his childhood examinations and tests! Y should we deny a growing child the ability to feel like something in this world? Psychology states and attests anything that causes mental or physical harm is wrong period end of story and discussion! If they claim to be Gay then it’s so simple to tell them that they need to see their family doctor and get checked to be clean and show them proof this will tell them if they have HIV’s or STD’s and is promoting good health too! If they are honest because people are going to be dishonest regardless and will cause deaths anyway. There is something wrong with individuals that drives them to commit acts of prejudice when it can avoided and the fact of truth is no different than to have them checked and comes out clean and if it does oh my gosh he can save someone did you know that?? If I needed blood transfusions and I know I could die from HIV’s anyway or live having it from it…I would accept this but it would be nicer knowing there was more blood in the bank than not having enough to save me from some misfortunate accident!