Lawyer Argues For Gay Blood Donations
 
 


Of all the gay-related debates, blood donations remain one of the most contentious and potentially important.

The world's blood banks claim the lavender set represent a health risk. While some gays are content to keep their cells to themselves, Australian national Michael Cain's not taking this shit lying down: he's filed a lawsuit against his nation's Red Cross for discriminating against his plasma.

And, rather than simply playing the gay card, McCain's lawyer's using actual logic:

Mr Cain’s lawyer, Peter Tree SC, told the Tribunal that there are gay men who have a much lower risk of HIV than many heterosexuals and that the blood from these men could save lives if it was accepted.

Mr Tree also accused the Red Cross of exaggerating the HIV risk associated with gay sex to “extreme” levels.

“The Red Cross has assisted in perpetuating the stereotype that gay sex is risky and unhealthy,” he said.

Mr Tree went on to say that the Red Cross has known since 2001 that there is no medical evidence to support a ban on men engaging in a range of sexual activities with other men, including oral sex.

“This alone should compel the Tribunal to find that the Red Cross policy is unjustifiable.”

The Red Cross' lawyers claim gay men could be more "altruistic" by realizing the risk they pose. That's some bloody bullshit.

 
Nov 7, 2008 · Link · 10 Responses
Tagged: , , , ,
 
Fark Facebook Digg StumbleUpon Del.icio.us Reddit
Comments (10)

No. 1 · seitan-on-a-stick

I have cooties!

Posted: Nov 7, 2008 at 1:46 pm
No. 2 · fredo777

Eff them + their lawyers.

I'll keep my blood, gladly.

Posted: Nov 7, 2008 at 1:48 pm
No. 3 · Smokey Martini

*sigh*

Posted: Nov 7, 2008 at 2:12 pm
No. 4 · reversion

"And, rather than simply playing the gay card, McCain's lawyer's…"

freudian slip?

Posted: Nov 7, 2008 at 7:49 pm
No. 5 · Charles J. Mueller

Why would any self-respecting gay person wish to donate his blood to a bunch of homophobes who hate your queer corpuscles?

Posted: Nov 8, 2008 at 12:33 am
No. 6 · scott

And really, if gays are found in 5% or 10% of the population, would gays donating blood make that big a difference. Where are all the heteros? If at least 50% of heteros donated wouldn't the blood banks be ok?

Posted: Nov 8, 2008 at 7:48 pm
No. 7 · Dan

its a form of discrimination and its an underhanded way of making gay people look more 'diseased'

i'm in australia and i know a few people (yself included) that hate that rule

if he was wanting to make it a group suit i'd be tempted to try and join in

especially if the ban gets lifted i'd be very tempted to donate blood just to show how excluding the gay community from anythign is bad any way you slice it

maybe if people see the positive effects of including gay people other bans and exclusions might be dropped.

Posted: Nov 9, 2008 at 1:24 am
No. 8 · cwm

Every donation is tested for HIV, so excluding groups as donors is irrational. That leaves only one possible reason for the policy.

Posted: Nov 9, 2008 at 6:41 am
No. 9 · technicolornina

I already donate on behalf of my gay male friends who cannot donate. It's a stupid rule! Most of my gay friends are safer in terms of sex than my hetero friends, so I don't see what their fuss is. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Posted: Nov 10, 2008 at 2:02 am
No. 10 · theo

fucking homo-hating red-cross and friends. This is not just about stopping us from helping those around us by donating. It also has adverse health risk to us. Donating blood regularly is proven to be good for your body. Without the ability to give blood we have no safe way of doing this on a consistent basis.

Posted: Nov 10, 2008 at 11:35 am
Leave a Comment

It's easier to leave comments when you register for an account. It's quick.

Already have an account? Then log in!

By posting, you agree to our Comments Policy.

 
 
Scroll Posts
No One Wants Bush's Book « Next — Prev » Silver Lining…
Queerty Home | Advertise | Copyright 2009 Jossip Initiatives