Blood Supply
Posted on Thursday, August 18th, 2005 at 23:24.
The Red Cross, faced with a shortage of blood donations, has found an unusual way to get potential donors to their doorstep: free iPods, vacations, gas cards, and meals. Let me rephrase: The Red Cross would rather spend $200 on an iPod for your blood than allow a gay male or anyone with a tattoo donate blood.
I gave blood every time the Blood Mobile came to my high school my junior and senior year. I have not given blood since out of ideological protest. I encourage you not to give blood, even if you are eligible, until the law changes.
I didn’t realize people who have tattoos also can’t give blood. No wonder there’s such a shortage – at least 75% of the people here have tattoos, plus this is a very gay-friendly area.
The very thought of giving blood makes me feel faint, and I’m so damn skinny I probably need all the blood I have. ;)
I actually was never aware that gay males were not allowed to give blood. That’s about as stupid as people who seem to think being gay means you magically get HIV. Living an irresponsible lifestyle either straight or homosexual can lead to HIV. This Red Cross rule simply enforces stereotypes that all gays have HIV. Very disconcerting.
I would like to point out that more than just the Red Cross accepts blood donations. Your local hospital accepts donations and chances are their regulations are less discriminating.
I’m a Red Cross volunteer. It’s federal law, not Red Cross. All blood agencies use the federal guidelines.
- b
Every pint gets tested for everything extensively, so I agree: stupid, stupid law. I gave extensively up until I would have had to answer yes to “the question.” And with everything being tested, they could be catching HIV and other diseases at a potentially earlier stage and maybe slowing rates of infection by some amount. Scrutiny is good, but discrimination is not. Make sure everybody’s clean, cuz I guarantee I’m a lot safer than your average hetero….
“Acceptable if the tattoo was applied by a state-regulated entity using sterile technique. Only a few states currently regulate tattoo facilities, so most donors with tattoos must wait 12 months after tattoo application before donating blood.”
I believe MA does some licensing of tatoos. And a 12 month wait seems reasonable for all others.
On that entire page you liked to, I couldn’t find a single mention of Homosexuality being a limiting factor.
Are you sure encouraging a boycott of BLOOD DONATION is the course you want to take?
How ignorant can you be?
Just ridiculous.
Further your cause, but don’t endanger people in the process.
Idiot.
Hey there…I discussed this in my blog about a month ago:
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com/2005/07/red-cross-utilizing-inaccurate.html
We also discussed it on Postqueer:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/postqueer/339504.html
It’s not just gay men; it’s any male who’s had sex with a male since 1977, or anyone who’s had sex with a male who’s had sex with a male since 1977. They’re basing it on a very broad demographic rather than actual risk factors. In my blog, I give examples of people who are and aren’t allowed by their guidelines.
Not giving blood is not the answer though. The people who have been in accidents or are critically ill are not the ones discriminating against queers. If you’ve tested negative for HIV and other bloodborne pathogens, then you don’t need to tell them about your “risk” factors.
Then write to them urging them to actually use scientific facts in choosing whose blood to take.
Oh, having a RECENT tattoo disqualifies someone. Not just having one. My blog has a link to the Red Cross guidelines.
Cheers!
~eeka
I had no idea about tattoos being a factor; I just found out about the gay rule a few weeks ago.
I think the question should be along the lines of, have you been involved with any risky behavior… There are a lot of straight people I’d pray never to get their blood if something happened to me–knowing what type of life they’ve led.
The opportunity to win an iPod, gas card, whatever, would seem to only encourage donors to lie about their health too. Bad idea.
Shawn: Yes, that is the course I’m going to take. Apparently the federal government has not heard the letters and calls to remove this discrimination.
I am not endangering people by being a gay male and donating blood. The federal government is endangering people by not allowing gay men to donate blood. The federal government has created its own blood boycott. I’m just getting the word out.
Rebe: “You should not give blood if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV. [. . .] You are at risk for getting infected if you: are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977″
“….and the Red Cross has not issued Gaydar guns to their nurses.”
ha! you say that like you’d be fooling them. why am I the one nobody ever suspects while you’re the one watching Bill O’ I’ll never understand…. ;o)
As a gay male who only practices safe sex and has been celibate (mostly by choice) for the last year, my blood is probably safer (except for my cholesterol level) than straight males who have sex a few times a week without condoms, yet they’re allowed to give blood. As long as the blood tests negative for HIV, Hep C and other diseases, it will be just as safe no matter who it came from.
As a couple of folks already pointed out, tattooed people are allowed to donate, just not within 12 months of being inked. Logical precaution. I think someone also pointed out that “gay males” are not excluded, but instead “men who have sex with men”… a gay virgin should have no problem. Is this fair? No. Like the guy before me pointed out, a monogomous homosexual is likely to have cleaner blood than a hetero slut, yet the distinction is still made. Elaine isn’t allowed to donate because she’s from England and therefore a Mad Cow risk. It’s stupid, yes, but boycotting donations won’t do anything but kill people who need transfusions.