I work for my school newspaper and was recently assigned to write a story about our school's Blood Drive. Aside from highlighting a few students involved in publicising and organizing the event, I needed to know basic information: age and weight requirements, and what medical conditions could possibly prevent a student from donating. Though I expected that certain blood diseases would prevent a person from giving blood, I was rather offended to find that any male who has had sex with another man since 1977 is ineligible to give blood.
I understand that the American Red Cross wants to ensure that donated blood is healthy. But, first of all, I would hope that donated blood is tested before it is injected into a victim. Second, I am getting incredibly tired of HIV/AIDS being labeled as a "gay" disease. Perhaps in the beginning it affected mostly gay males, but, regardless of a person's views on homosexuality, AIDS is a disease that can be spread through sexual contact with an affected person. It is not God's punnishment for being gay, otherwise it would not have claimed as many heterosexual victims as it has.
If the Red Cross is taking the position that gay men are simply more likely to have the disease, it should be noted that new research has started to shake this idea. In some studies, higher percentages of victims have aquired AIDS through heterosexual activity. AIDS is a different disease than it was ten or twenty years ago, and does not truly discriminate. It simply worries me that a monagamous homosexual cannot donate blood, but it is said that 1/3 of Americans living with AIDS are unaware of it. It would seem that if the Red Cross is testing all blood to ensure it is healthy, that it would be no more difficult to weed out "gay" blood than blood from a heterosexual donor.
When I went to give blood at my school's drive I read the same thing. I understood it, when I read it, to be a question they ask you which would lead them to label you more likely to have HIV/AIDS. I know that they also ask you if you have stayed outside the country in certain contries, one of which I have, and all they did was set aside an extra vile for testing.
Is it just another question for them to put an extra test vile on, or is it one of those, "if you have done___ then you cannot give blood"? Because I perceived it as different.
I read on a website that this made donors ineligible. What you're saying would make more sense, but what I read is that they can't give blood at all. I may be wrong though. Thanks for replying:-)
I may write a letter to them. They are always saying that they want more donors, and if this is the case, they aren't doing themselves any good. Anybody who is homosexual can get a HIV test when they give blood to confirm that they dont have it. And then, it is one more life saved by that donor.
That's a great idea. I might as well, but I want to look up the official policies to make sure I'm well-informed before I do. My mom thinks it's a liability issue, but I don't think that most people on their death beds are going to complain about where their blood came from, so long as it's been tested and is healthy.
If I was on my death bed I know I wouldn't mind where the blood came from, But I do know of people who will only receive blood from donors of their same religion.
I can kind of understand that, looking at it from their perspective, but it's not like blood has affiliation. Oh well. If a person is dying, they tend to be less picky than when they make these decisons fully conscious and healthy.
I completely agree with you on this. My previous year in High School (Junior Year) I was an important member of my High School's GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance). When I found out from a blood drive my school was holding for the Red Cross I became greatly offended, even as a heterosexual female, to find that very same thing out. The real truth is that it's not just males who have had sexual contact with another male. It's ALSO females that have had sexual contact with a male that has had sexual contact with another male.
When I found this out I was determined to try to change this. Our GSA did some research and found that we weren't the first to attempt this great feat. There had even been trials against the Red Cross for this very thing. The problem is, the Red Cross is a non-profit organization so it is immune to discrimination laws.
However, the reason the Red Cross discludes this male with male and female with male with male sexual activity is not because it's a "gay" STI (Sexually Transmitted Infection -- term has been recently changed from STD because of arguement about how most are not in fact diseases, but infections). My GSA found this out because the highest rising group of people in the United States getting the HIV virus are African American Females and other females of color. This being said, I don't think anybody could imagine the Red Cross discriminating against a group of color. Everyone would be infuriated. So we dug deeper.
We found that the actual reason for this kind of discrimination is purely because statistics show that homosexual and bisexual males are the most likely group of people to have unprotected sexual contact. Regardless of this reason, I fully agree with you. I am against discrimination of any kind, and agree that it shouldn't matter because they do, in fact, HAVE to test the blood they are given before tranfusing it into another person. This is why the Red Cross always takes 5 sample tubes of your blood after the pint. It's for testing for HIV, Hepititis, and any other STI that resides in the blood, as well as for scientific purposes.
I hope this information helps.
- Sophia
It's interesting what you said about non-profit organizations being immune to discrimination laws. I envy your school having an active GSA. The one at my school has a total of three members, only one of whom is homosexual, and they pretty much get together and talk about their feelings or do cute activities like draw pictures of their inner feelings or something like that.
I wasn't aware that the Red Cross had recieved so much criticism for this already. Thanks for the info, it actually was very helpful.
I wish my school had an active GSA too. I just moved from another city to go to a new school for my Senior Year. A major downgrade of a city to be somewhat specific (a lot less liberal, and therefore, less progressive).
The best thing we have here now is a meeting once a month, rather than once a week, for people all across town, instead of one area. Essentially they need something MUCH better.
If you want to you should try to create something locally for youre community. Get involved with your school's personal activities like sports and theatre. That is to say, get THEM involved in their own way. Create funds or events that companies or people from the neighborhood can sponsor for the athletes or thespians. This way you can have more involvement, even in a small town, and you can raise awareness. For example, did you know that approximately 10% of every species on Earth is not heterosexual?
- Sophia
I did know that statistic. Unfortunately, I have a very gay-unfriendly family, so my involvement in local activities has to be well-concealed. There really aren't enough people who are out who actually want to be involved. I don't really live in a small town, more like a blah city where it's not small enough to be called a "small" town but not big enough to be liberal in the least.
It's the same thing for me here. This kind of makes me curious. Wouldn't it be wierd if we both were from the same city? Well anyway, you should try to find ways to be an active member/ally to the gay community without it being obvious. Ask around.
- Sophia
I really understand where you arecoming fromabout HIV/AIDS being a gay disease. I personally think it is a problem for everyone. Not only should gays be concerned but everyone should take a part in this act.
Exactly. It affects everyone and therefore everyone should be concerned about it.
The Red Cross should definitely be confronted for this policy. They are basically saying that being homosexual makes one more likely for HIV than if one were heterosexual. Unless they can prove the charge with stats, this is totally orientation discrimination.
Besides, Red Cross now checks all donations for HIV by Nucleic Acid Test; it has no need for such discrimination to protect its patients.
Well it's saying that being a homosexual male makes you more likely for HIV infection. It seems that people have attempted to change this, but as another user mentioned, the Red Cross is a non-profit organization and therefore does not have to obey discrimination laws. It does seem a bit fishy to me, though.
Thanks for the reply:-)
It's interesting that non-profits should be considered exempt from anti-discrimination laws. Any clue what this is based on? I can't think of any legal basis for such a claim. Non-profit status shouldn't mean the organization is immune from such severe offense. How does profit have anything to do with equality? It makes no sense at all. I think we should check up the relevant court decisions and statutes.
I'm honestly not sure. I think it's similar to the fact that churches can refuse to marry a biracial couple or a Catholic church can refuse to marry two Protestants in their church. When the law was passed that all states must make 21 their legal drinking age, the only consequences were that they would not get a grant to build more highways. If they chose to foresake the grant, states could have technically set any age they wanted to. Money always seems to find a way to mess things up.