Transmission categories of male adolescents and adults given a diagnosis of AIDS, through 2003
CDC.GOV
If you want on/off the ping list let me and little jeremiah know.
Posted on 10/17/2005 4:23:05 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
Will and his partner are like a well-oiled machine when it comes to making their morning coffee.
Will, wanted to donate blood: We never had a fight. Never had one fight.
They have been in a monogamous relationship for five years and recently the couple was moved by the images of the devastation left behind by hurricane Katrina.
Will: I went to donate blood, because I felt like I needed to do something for the hurricane victims.
But before will could even roll up his sleeves, he was told his blood was unwanted. The reason - it wasn't because he was sick or had visited a third world country. Instead, it was because he honestly answered the blood center's survey.
Will: They gave me a questionnaire to fill out and one of the questions was have you ever had sex with a man since 1977. Of course I answered yes.
And with that, Will was told it's perfectly acceptable to be an openly gay man, just not a gay blood donor.
Will: I was turned down because I was gay. I was told that was why I could not donate blood.
For Will, it makes no sense. He feels in this time of need, his blood should be tested before it's turned down. Not to mention, all men and women - regardless of sexual preference - pose a risk. Now, Will says denying his donation is just wrong.
Will: I was in shock more than anything. I just couldn't believe it.
Employees at South Florida's blood centers say Will's not the only one complaining.
Will: A couple of calls from people, particularly those that are in monogamous homosexual relationships, questioning the policy.
But the decision to prohibit only gay men - not gay women - from giving blood comes from the federal government not local blood centers. The food and drug administration has banned gay men from donating since 1983, during the height of the Aids scare.
Will: I know this particular policy has been reviewed in recent years, and there's a push to review it again.
You can count will as one of the people hoping to revise the rule.
Will: It's outdated. I really feel the FDA needs to revisit this law and join us in the new millennium.
Especially in a day and age where there are constant shortages of blood. Will believes it's time to recognize gay men as an untapped resource.
Will: A high population of homosexuals wants to donate blood are safe and monogamous.
What's with the common sense going on here?
My husband had hip replacement surgery a few years ago, and they wouldn't even let me donate toward that.
I found it rather odd because, if (and that's a huge "if) it was communicable in anyway, be it blood borne or whatever, you'd think I'd have passed it on to my husband over the past 20 years.
So the restriction makes no sense to me, but it is what it is.
There have been quite a few stories of gay men wanting to donate blood and I think the problem is they don't have as many cute young victims of AIDS like Ryan White. So they can't claim that AIDS is a universal disease anymore, and the public clamor isn't as loud to increase funding.
Also, remember the Canadian Red Cross got slammed in a lawsuit over tainted blood some years ago, what blood bank in their right mind would take that risk except for political correctness?
Why did the victims of the hurricane need blood?
I thought they needed shelter, food, water, and everything else to put their lives back together.
Sounds like these "men" were looking to make an issue.
Note to Will....give money, nobody will refuse it.
98% of the men in a monogamous homosexual relationship are not monogamous sexually.
They wont take blood if you have ever been treated for Cancer either.
Will the three homosexual male couples who are truly mongamous please donate blood to make this story true?
Have the courts looked at this policy yet? Has the ACLU taken a position?
Ain't it the truth. You'd think AIDS was news to him.
Poor Will's problem is easy to rectify (sorry about the pun): Will can start a chain of "Back Door Blood Donors," and reap his fortune.
If you want on/off the ping list let me and little jeremiah know.
You are free to play russian roulette...
" You are free to play russian roulette..."
How is it russian roulette if the blood is tested and comes out clean? You can't catch gay from blood.
Maybe its supposed to be a kind of smilie, as in...
"Willie, was tired but his friend \Rod wanted to party."
So? The first ammendment gaurantees our right to peacably assemble. That is we have the right of free association. We can associate with anyone we please. The correlary to that is that we have the right to NOT associate with anyone we choose.
Discrimination in most cases is a very good thing. (The Amish call it shunning) People freely choosing not to associate with people they don't like.
While I agree that discrimination due to someone's skin color is stupid it should not be illegal. And discrimination due to someone's behavior is incredibly wise.
It's time we stopped being so wussified in this country and started standing up for our right to discriminate (not to associate)
"It's time we stopped being so wussified in this country and started standing up for our right to discriminate (not to associate)"
I was actually looking at it from the point of supply chain disruption - having to keep the blood from all different races separate would add complexity and exacerbate shortages... not to mention many people are mixed race.
Geesh. Get over it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.