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.

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.

fuck them i'll keep my blood in my body

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/2.....90930.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.

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.

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.

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.

They also discuss the Iraqi treatment of gays and lesbians.

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.

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.

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/C.....d_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.

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.

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!

@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.

@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.

@Chuck: That evil Lesbo!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Guess what morons – This guy is infected with numerous STDs.

prove it or it didn't happen

link an article, Steven

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/re.....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?