PDA

View Full Version : I tried to donate blood and they refused me...because I'm Gay!!!


Kirt12255
Jan 3rd, 2006, 10:55 AM
:mad: I took the time after work today to donate blood, they didn't want it because I was gay!!!!. (Now there's one for the lefty's).

I am "High Risk" apparently. I have safe sex, when this country is so low on blood donations I find this astounding! I get tested every 6 months!

Sure...Gay men are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than hetro-sexuals, but according to a recent study in Africa, as is anyone having sex with a partner with a foreskin.

(P.S....when we donate here in Australia, we don't get paid...we get a piece of chocolate and a coffee...how many people that are sick are going to donate and with medical facilities...surely blood can be screened?:rolleyes: )

I went to the red cross blood site for Australia and it stipulates a "12 month "insert bullshit word here" period after male-male sex"....does that mean I can't have sex for 12 months or does it mean they can't use it for 12 months?:confused:

Maybe gay men just need to set up a tent outside hospitals so parents can "decide" if they want their blood...I'm sure many would take the risk if their child needed a transfusion.

When were these rules imposed on the generosity of donating? I'm clean...some aren't...sure...just seems stupid to me. A "Breeder" can have unsafe sex as well.

(I'm not waving the colours of the rainbow here, just want clarification)

Does anyone on here know more about the processes? :confused:

yellowcard
Jan 3rd, 2006, 11:01 AM
It's a scandal, the same thing happens here in Belgium!

Kirt12255
Jan 3rd, 2006, 11:03 AM
Maybe not because I'm gay, perhaps because the legislate of blood donation is wrong...sorry for the misleading title, but the counter nurse blatently told me I couldn't...which seems wrong even to their stipulations. :confused:

yellowcard
Jan 3rd, 2006, 11:04 AM
Maybe not because I'm gay, perhaps because the legislate of blood donation is wrong...sorry for the misleading title, but the counter nurse blatently told me I couldn't...which seems wrong even to their stipulations. :confused:


I think here it is because you are gay, and you are in a group with extreme risks! (Omg :eek: )

Kirt12255
Jan 3rd, 2006, 11:05 AM
It's a scandal, the same thing happens here in Belgium!

Wowzers, just thought It might have been here...they are happy to take my organs if I die though...go figure :confused:

yellowcard
Jan 3rd, 2006, 11:07 AM
Wowzers, just thought It might have been here...they are happy to take my organs if I die though...go figure :confused:


:tape:

Kirt12255
Jan 3rd, 2006, 11:07 AM
the I think here it is because you are gay, and you are in a group with extreme risks! (Omg :eek: )

That's what I mean...what primative thinking!! :sad: It's just sad, tomorrow I'll be making phone-calls.

Crazy Canuck
Jan 3rd, 2006, 11:08 AM
The same thing occurs in Canada. The first time I gave bloody I was a little surprised at the line of questioning. This is problematic, I agree. I'm sorry to hear you had to deal with this. One shouldn't have to lie about their sexuality in order to donate blood... especially in a day and age where the samples are tested anyways.

ZAK
Jan 3rd, 2006, 11:08 AM
Do you have to disclose your sexual oriantation to give blood? that seems odd

Crazy Canuck
Jan 3rd, 2006, 11:09 AM
Do you have to disclose your sexual oriantation to give blood? that seems odd
In Canada they don't directly ask your sexual orientation, but they do ask if you are a man who has slept with a man in the past 12 months OR if you slept with a man who slept with a man in the past 12 months :retard:

I assume that it's similar in Australia, based on the first post.

Kirt12255
Jan 3rd, 2006, 11:13 AM
In Canada they don't directly ask your sexual orientation, but they do ask if you are a man who has slept with a man in the past 12 months OR if you slept with a man who slept with a man in the past 12 months :retard:

I assume that it's similar in Australia, based on the first post.

Yes, sure is....you fill out a sheet with questions...I answered them honestly...she said "Your'e Gay...I'm sorry but thank you"....I don't have HIV...have only been with partners and safe the whole way...there are no tick boxes for that though. :(

*JR*
Jan 3rd, 2006, 12:28 PM
In the US, travel to parts of Africa within the past (???) years itself is a disqualifying factor. So even if she wasn't a Jehovah's Witness, I guess Serena couldn't give blood due to her Cameroon trip. :o

pla
Jan 3rd, 2006, 12:44 PM
Well, I can't donate blood because I'm living with someone with a Hepatitis C- ill or not ill, condoms or not, I just don't qualify. I am now and will be in the dangerous group of people and no one will take my blood and organs. But given the fact how many people got ill from Hepatits C before the modern-day science even knew such an illness exists, who knows what other things we have in our bodies.

So, don't be angry, think anout the people who want a blood without major risks. I wanted so much to sign up to donate my organs if something happens with me but I couldn't. We'll have to find other ways of helping.

This said, I don't try to tell you that it's fair- it's not. If you're sure they are discriminating without any sicentific reason, don't let thing go- fight. I suggest you ask someone of the specific reasons of such a refusal.

!<blocparty>!
Jan 3rd, 2006, 12:46 PM
The same thing happened in the UK.

I gave blood and mine was fine, I have the card. ;) What happens if someone starts having sex with men after they've already donated blood that's tested OK, is it technically not allowed then?

marmite1
Jan 3rd, 2006, 12:49 PM
Well, I can't donate blood because I'm living with someone with a Hepatitis C- ill or not ill, condoms or not, I just don't qualify. I am now and will be in the dangerous group of people and no one will take my blood and organs. But given the fact how many people got ill from Hepatits C before the modern-day science even knew such an illness exists, who knows what other things we have in our bodies.

So, don't be angry, think anout the people who want a blood without major risks. I wanted so much to sign up to donate my organs if something happens with me but I couldn't. We'll have to find other ways of helping.

This said, I don't try to tell you that it's fair- it's not. If you're sure they are discriminating without any sicentific reason, don't let thing go- fight. I suggest you ask someone of the specific reasons of such a refusal.


I agree.

pla
Jan 3rd, 2006, 12:51 PM
The same thing happened in the UK.

I gave blood and mine was fine, I have the card. ;) What happens if someone starts having sex with men after they've already donated blood that's tested OK, is it technically not allowed then?

In fact bood-donation is based on confidence in people's declarations. I mean, you can always lie, it's not a problem. They still test the blood though but they can't test it for everything and even less for what they don't know ;)

!<blocparty>!
Jan 3rd, 2006, 12:59 PM
In fact bood-donation is based on confidence in people's declarations. I mean, you can always lie, it's not a problem. They still test the blood though but they can't test it for everything and even less for what they don't know ;)

I would probably just lie... I mean, if I know I'm clean and my blood could save someones life, I may aswell help them out.

Grachka
Jan 3rd, 2006, 01:44 PM
I could perhaps understand this policy if it was done in a day and age when they didn't rigourously test the samples, and there was a massive difference in the prevalence of diseases between the sexualities.

I don't quite get why I couldn't give blood when coming back from Russia either, given I was not in a malaria ridden zone, or didn't have lots of sex with gay men or prostitutes, and said so on my form and declaration. The Scottish Blood Transfusion Service then appealed for an emergency blood drive the next week because stocks had reached critically low levels.

Ho hum.

!<blocparty>!
Jan 3rd, 2006, 01:47 PM
You can't expect people to want your blood... with a hideous rash on your arm, G. :p

Rocketta
Jan 3rd, 2006, 01:52 PM
The list is very long on why people can't donate blood...if you lived in England for a length of time you can't donate blood here in the states. I understand the principle of trying to limit people with 'high risk' factors for certain blood borne diseases it's not just AIDs or Gay people. It's the first defense in keeping tainted blood from the blood bank the 2nd defense is then testing the blood but if more tainted blood gets in the process the more likely that the testing will miss tainted blood and then someone who gets life saving blood could end up with a life threatening disease. :shrug:

some restrictions....

Intravenous Drug Use
Those who have ever used IV drugs that were not prescribed by a physician are not eligible to donate. This requirement is related to concerns about hepatitis and HIV.

Malaria
Wait 3 years after completing treatment for malaria. Wait 12 months after returning from a trip to an area where malaria is found. Wait 3 years after living in a country where malaria is found.



Organ/Tissue Transplants
Wait 12 months after receiving a Kidney transplant or tissue transplant from another person. If you are taking medications to prevent rejection of the kidney or tissue you are not eligible to donate. You are not eligible if you have had any other type of organ transplants regardless of medications to prevent rejection. If you ever received a dura mater (brain covering) transplant, you are not eligible to donate. This requirement is related to concerns about the brain disease, Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease (CJD).



Piercing (ears, body), Electrolysis
Acceptable as long as the instruments used were sterile, one time use. Wait 12 months if there is any question whether or not the instruments used were sterile and free of blood contamination. This requirement is related to concerns about hepatitis.

Travel Outside of U.S., Immigration
Wait 12 months after travel in an area where malaria is found. Wait 3 years after living in a country where malaria is found. Persons who have spent long periods of time in countries where "mad cow disease" is found are not eligible to donate. This requirement is related to concerns about variant Creutzfeld Jacob Disease (vCJD). Learn more about vCJD and donation (javascript:popUp('/services/biomed/blood/supply/cjdv.html','toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no, status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, width=500,height=350,left=100,top=100')). Persons who were born in or who lived in certain countries in Western Africa, or who have had close contact with persons who were born in or who lived in certain West African countries are not eligible to donate. This requirement is related to concerns about HIV Group O.

Grachka
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:00 PM
You can't expect people to want your blood... with a hideous rash on your arm, G. :p
Hrmph. You said it was beautiful before.

Anyway, its all gone now, replaced by rippling muscle mass.

!<blocparty>!
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:13 PM
Hrmph. You said it was beautiful before.

Anyway, its all gone now, replaced by rippling muscle mass.

Ah I did. But not everyone has arm rash fetishes, surprisingly. ;)

Rippling muscle? I doubt anyone would want your steroid/cocaine filled blood inside their body's. :p

Rtael
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:20 PM
:rolleyes:

Rocketta
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:31 PM
I think as long as anybody who needs blood can get it.....I'm fine with them puting as many safety oriented restrictions as they deem necessary.

LeRoy.
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:32 PM
well good thing i have never donated blood. They don't want my "gay" blood anyways :shrug:

Dava
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:33 PM
In the UK no matter if you are clean and you are tested regulary you still cant give blood if you are gay, from Africa, or have had sex with someone from an african country in the past year. I think something needs to be changed especially since the blood supplys are low and all the blood goes away to be screened. Obviously diabetics cant give blood either i think.

Kirt12255
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:43 PM
I will be discussing the methods and practice of the Australian Red-Cross Blood Bank....when I speak with them tomorrow.

I feel victimised! Call me a poof..fag...anything.....when I decide to give something to my society as a gesture...my sexual preference is irrelevant.

I'll bump this thread when I get some answers tomorrow. (Today)

I will not be persecuted on the basis of a social tag that is out-dated.:mad:

SAEKeithSerena
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:44 PM
where did you try to give your blood at? that is absolutely idiotic and if i were you i would call the organization's president or manager or whoever, that is not right at all.

Kirt12255
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:45 PM
In the UK no matter if you are clean and you are tested regulary you still cant give blood if you are gay, from Africa, or have had sex with someone from an african country in the past year. I think something needs to be changed especially since the blood supplys are low and all the blood goes away to be screened. Obviously diabetics cant give blood either i think.

That makes me feel ill:sad:

Helen Lawson
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:45 PM
They usually turn me down because I'm a lush hooked on prescription medication.

*JR*
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:46 PM
Rippling muscle? I doubt anyone would want your steroid/cocaine filled blood inside their body's. :p
Can we please keep Sesil out of this? :p

Kirt12255
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:47 PM
where did you try to give your blood at? that is absolutely idiotic and if i were you i would call the organization's president or manager or whoever, that is not right at all.

:confused: Where everyone else goes....It's out-dated....just went to Gaydar and chatted with the lobby there....they say Gay=No Blood:confused:

marmite1
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:49 PM
:confused: Where everyone else goes....It's out-dated....just went to Gaydar and chatted with the lobby there....they say Gay=No Blood:confused:

Do you know if it applies to lesbians aswell?

yellowcard
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:50 PM
Actually is tragical; I think that when we gays do get the chance to donate, very few will :lol:

It's like our history teacher said: 'With the Egyptians, the temple was sacred and therefor forbidden for common people; now, with us, the church is always open and what's the case? No one ever goes to it.' :lol: :lol: :tape:

Kirt12255
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:55 PM
[QUOTE=Just_Me]Did i hear muscle ? :drool: :lick: :hearts: do you have an accent like Ewan McGregor in trainspotting ? :drool:[/QU

WTF!!! :rolleyes: Do you post everywhere?

I am being treated as a HIV/AIDS case and you think Ewan McGregor is relevant....it's a movie!!! Go and look your'e self in the mirror...come back and type something relevant.

Kirt12255
Jan 3rd, 2006, 02:58 PM
Do you know if it applies to lesbians aswell?

Check it out...was purely Male-Male...harder for ladies to transmit though...it's not a gay hate thing I know. Just very out-dated. IMO

Google - Australia Red Cross Blood Donations

Rocketta
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:05 PM
WTF!!! :rolleyes: Do you post everywhere?

I am being treated as a HIV/AIDS case and you think Ewan McGregor is relevant....it's a movie!!! Go and look your'e self in the mirror...come back and type something relevant.

They are not treating you like an HIV/AIDS case....they are treating you like someone who has an increased risk of catching HIV/AIDS that's not the same thing. Just like they treat people from the UK as potential Mad Cow disease transmitters.....it's precautionary.

You know if the screening process has an error rate of say .1 % and say that corresponds to 5 quarts of tainted blood making it through and being given to someone....if the red cross increases their potential tainted blood population by letting everyone and anyone give blood and that changes the .1% error to mean 10 quarts of tainted blood make it through....whose rights do you think are more important the person who can't give blood but can receive it just like anyone else or the person who ends up with a possible incurable disease? :confused:

!<blocparty>!
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:07 PM
I think you need to calm down and get over it Kirt. Discrimination is a bitch. ;)

Knizzle
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:08 PM
I gave blood in high school and I think we had that same type questionnaire, but I don't remember them asking the gay question. If they did it didn't stick out in my mind. Anyway they must have liked my blood cause they still call bothering me to donate more.

Crazy Canuck
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:08 PM
I think as long as anybody who needs blood can get it.....I'm fine with them puting as many safety oriented restrictions as they deem necessary.

So am I... but fail to understand why the main topic in this thread is considered a necessary restriction.

griffin
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:10 PM
I think as long as anybody who needs blood can get it.....I'm fine with them puting as many safety oriented restrictions as they deem necessary.

I agree that the safety of the blood supply is paramount, but the agument against the ban is that banning any man who has had sex of any kind with another man - while there are no restrictions on people who've had unprotected heterosexual intercourse (oral, anal or vaginal) really doesn't add to the safety of the blood supply.

Rocketta
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:12 PM
So am I... but fail to understand why the main topic in this thread is considered a necessary restriction.

because unfortunately certain populations have a higher risk of being HIV positive just like the African restriction....hence increasing the chance of tainted blood making its way into the blood bank.

it's the same reason they restrict IV drug users, even if they say but I only use clean needles....you still can't trust that they are telling the truth and it's much more simple to restrict those type of donors.

It would be one thing if they didn't restrict Africans or IV drug users but only restricted gay people because of the HIV/AIDs risk but they don't they limit all of them.

It won't shock me if they one day restrict the possible donation of African-Americans younger than 40 as that population is the fastest increasing HIV + population....and I wouldn't blame them.

Kirt12255
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:17 PM
So am I... but fail to understand why the main topic in this thread is considered a necessary restriction.

The restrictions are there for a reason, sure.

Why should I fight to give blood when I know It's needed and I know that mine is clean?

Yes gay men fuck around - bare-back - everything....when we don't get paid for our blood like alot of countries..why would you?

Fact is she discriminated against me because I was gay....I don't care about that.

I care that I have valid blood and because I was honest they don't want it! Someone will need it though. Keep it in reserve...test it...and use it!

Crazy Canuck
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:17 PM
because unfortunately certain populations have a higher risk of being HIV positive just like the African restriction....hence increasing the chance of tainted blood making its way into the blood bank.

it's the same reason they restrict IV drug users, even if they say but I only use clean needles....you still can't trust that they are telling the truth and it's much more simple to restrict those type of donors.

It would be one thing if they didn't restrict Africans or IV drug users but only restricted gay people because of the HIV/AIDs risk but they don't they limit all of them.

It won't shock me if they one day restrict the possible donation of African-Americans younger than 40 as that population is the fastest increasing HIV + population....and I wouldn't blame them.
I don't remember the exact line of questioning that I faced, since it's been a while since I gave blood.... but I remember thinking to myself that there were numerous things I could have done sexually that would ahve greatly increased my chances of acquiring HIV that they did not bother to screen for. However, since I don't have the list of questions in front of me, I can only be vague.

Restricting the the donation of blood from African-Americans to those older 40 would be absolutely devestating to the blood supply for certain blood types, I would think. In which case... I would certainly blame them :eek:

Good post, Griffin :yeah:

Rocketta
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:19 PM
I agree that the safety of the blood supply is paramount, but the agument against the ban is that banning any man who has had sex of any kind with another man - while there are no restrictions on people who've had unprotected heterosexual intercourse (oral, anal or vaginal) really doesn't add to the safety of the blood supply.

yes but if they ask that question in terms of homosexuality how many men on the down low or who sleep with men on the side will say they are homosexual and isn't that the most dangerous population of them all? A lot are in denial and when asked the 'H' question would love to answer no to feed that denial. Also, they may also ask the question that way as a concession to the fact that it's not homosexuality that puts a person at risk but the sexual act. They should just ask if you ever engaged in anal intercourse but somehow I doubt the gay population wouldn't see that question as a target to them anyway?

Rocketta
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:25 PM
I don't remember the exact line of questioning that I faced, since it's been a while since I gave blood.... but I remember thinking to myself that there were numerous things I could have done sexually that would ahve greatly increased my chances of acquiring HIV that they did not bother to screen for. However, since I don't have the list of questions in front of me, I can only be vague.

Restricting the the donation of blood from African-Americans to those older 40 would be absolutely devestating to the blood supply for certain blood types, I would think. In which case... I would certainly blame them :eek:

Good post, Griffin :yeah:

well that to me means that people should fight for more restrictions across the board not less....and to answer your question...although hetero's engage in dangerous sexual practices that are unhealthy and can spread diseases just like everyone else the statistics say it's far less likely a white girl's blood is HIV + compared to a white gay male or a person from South Africa. It's a percentage game I think. It's sad and I wish the numbers were going down but from all that I've read recently...in the states....stds in the gay community are on the rise again. :sad: They may be on the rise across the board.....if it's proven that a gay man is as likely or not as likely as any other population to have HIV, I think the restriction should be lifted. :shrug:

griffin
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:27 PM
I wasn't questioning whether to exclude "men who have sex with men" vs. "gay men/homosexuals" - the choise of terminology isn't the issue.

But yes, it would make FAR more sense to exclude anyone who'd had unprotected anal sex - regardless of their partner's gender - than it would to exclude all MSM's. Multiple partners also increases your risk. And I actually think that people would be less likely to lie about whether they can give blood or not if the exclusion is activity-specific and not gender-specific.

Kirt12255
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:27 PM
we're because unfortunately certain populations have a higher risk of being HIV positive just like the African restriction....hence increasing the chance of tainted blood making its way into the blood bank.

it's the same reason they restrict IV drug users, even if they say but I only use clean needles....you still can't trust that they are telling the truth and it's much more simple to restrict those type of donors.

It would be one thing if they didn't restrict Africans or IV drug users but only restricted gay people because of the HIV/AIDs risk but they don't they limit all of them.

It won't shock me if they one day restrict the possible donation of African-Americans younger than 40 as that population is the fastest increasing HIV + population....and I wouldn't blame them.


Having just watched Michael Moore's Doco's with Africanised bees and the sentiment...having posted for here for years....I would never have thought you a victim of socialist mechanics. The under-rhythms are astonishing....Rocketta you have always given an intelligent and thought-provoking view. Perhaps that's just me looking for something as someone challenges me on this as well :confused:

Rocketta
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:30 PM
I wasn't questioning whether to exclude "men who have sex with men" vs. "gay men/homosexuals" - the choise of terminology isn't the issue.

But yes, it would make FAR more sense to exclude anyone who'd had unprotected anal sex - regardless of their partner's gender - than it would to exclude all MSM's. Multiple partners also increases your risk. And I actually think that people would be less likely to lie about whether they can give blood or not if the exclusion is activity-specific and not gender-specific.

well I agree that it should be activity-specific when it comes to anal-sex...I don't specify protected or unprotected because people lie so much...I can just imagine a person who admits to engaging in anal sex saying to themselves...I just admitted one taboo...I'm not willing to admit another but that could just be my pesimistic nature. ;)

griffin
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:31 PM
I would never have thought you a victim of socialist mechanics. The under-rhythms are astonishing.... :confused:

:confused: indeed - what are you on about?

Rocketta
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:38 PM
we're


Having just watched Michael Moore's Doco's with Africanised bees and the sentiment...having posted for here for years....I would never have thought you a victim of socialist mechanics. The under-rhythms are astonishing....Rocketta you have always given an intelligent and thought-provoking view. Perhaps that's just me looking for something as someone challenges me on this as well :confused:

Look, I just understand that sometimes the rights of some in certain specific situations can't be upheld because the rights of a few (that would the be the potential victims of tainted blood). I also think the red cross discriminates against a lot of people not just gays but it's all for the same reason the protection of the blood bank. I think there has to be a reason why there is a tremendous need to limit the potential infected blood....I personally think it's because of the testing error % but I don't know that for sure.

Do I think there are better ways to limit infected blood, yes I do but honestly if you could give blood would you be upset for all the people of African decent and/or sleep with someone of African decent who can't give blood based on the high population of HIV infected people on the continent?

Rocketta
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:39 PM
:confused: indeed - what are you on about?

ok I'm glad I wasn't the only one that didn't understand that? :o

pla
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:41 PM
I wasn't questioning whether to exclude "men who have sex with men" vs. "gay men/homosexuals" - the choise of terminology isn't the issue.

But yes, it would make FAR more sense to exclude anyone who'd had unprotected anal sex - regardless of their partner's gender - than it would to exclude all MSM's. Multiple partners also increases your risk. And I actually think that people would be less likely to lie about whether they can give blood or not if the exclusion is activity-specific and not gender-specific.

Correct me if I am wrong but they DO not take blood from heterosexuals who had unprotected sex at least 12 months before the blood-donation. As I said, they don't even take my blood because I live with a HVC+ person but I have protected sex with him and all my tests until now are negative, so the restrictions are indeed quite strong.

"Sluggy"
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:46 PM
I probably cant give blood either, sorry it causes you heartache.

Rocketta
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:54 PM
I'm definitely going to pay much more attention to the questions when they are asked next time I give blood. Maybe I'll call the local office and see if they restrict heteros if they engage in unprotected sex?

!<blocparty>!
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:58 PM
Just a thought:

Does anyone else think people who are sensible enough to give up their time and donate blood in the first place, are LIKELY to be equally as sensible when it comes to having safe sex, and taking the necessary precautions in avoiding STD's? :confused:

Does anyone know what the percentages are like... for people with STD's that don't actually know they have anything?

griffin
Jan 3rd, 2006, 03:59 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but they DO not take blood from heterosexuals who had unprotected sex at least 12 months before the blood-donation

The ban on MSM's, at least in the US, is total - not "in the last year."

pla
Jan 3rd, 2006, 04:09 PM
The ban on MSM's, at least in the US, is total - not "in the last year."

MSM?

griffin
Jan 3rd, 2006, 04:23 PM
sorry - "Men who have Sex with Men"

pla
Jan 3rd, 2006, 04:28 PM
The ban on MSM's, at least in the US, is total - not "in the last year."

After the translation.. As I said in my first post, it's not fair and people should fight. My point was about your post, a clarification that any person having had unprotected sex is put away from donating blood. The period is another question ;)

*JR*
Jan 3rd, 2006, 05:05 PM
There's stuff they don't test for (HIV II, common in Southeast Asia for example) so ultimately blood substitutes will take ova the transfusion market. And on a side note, those who think "the blood business" is some kind of charity have no idea what it makes. Or that the Red Cross itself is a big middleman between the "donor mills" and hospitals. So called "bloodless surgery" (where one's own lost blood is re-oxygenated and reinfused into the patient) is preferable for planned sutuations.

Josh
Jan 3rd, 2006, 05:49 PM
Heterosexual women are just as high a risk group than homosexual men. In fact most people infected with HIV are heterosexual women. So it's definitely discriminatory to exclude homosexual men from giving blood if you're not excluding heterosexual women as well.

flyingmachine
Jan 3rd, 2006, 05:54 PM
I think this is stupid. I think it will be better if everyone have a HIV test before they could donate any blood.

marmite1
Jan 3rd, 2006, 05:56 PM
I think this is stupid. I think it will be better if everyone have a HIV test before they could donate any blood.

I agree :yeah:

*JR*
Jan 3rd, 2006, 06:03 PM
I think this is stupid. I think it will be better if everyone have a HIV test before they could donate any blood.
The donated blood itself is all tested, but only for the antibodies (which typically take 3 to 6 months to appear). While there is genetic testing for the viral particles themselves, its hugely expensive. And as I said a few posts above, blood is a big business. (Count Dracula would work full time these days, and sell his surplus). :o

VRee_Willario
Jan 3rd, 2006, 06:40 PM
The should have

Monica_Rules
Jan 3rd, 2006, 08:20 PM
I can't give blood because i have a heart murmur it also rules me out of bone marrow donation which sucks.

I know one rule for the UK is if a man/woman has anal sex you have to wait 12 months before donating blood.

Rocketta
Jan 3rd, 2006, 08:47 PM
Heterosexual women are just as high a risk group than homosexual men. In fact most people infected with HIV are heterosexual women. So it's definitely discriminatory to exclude homosexual men from giving blood if you're not excluding heterosexual women as well.

eh, not true for the US here's what the CDC says

AIDS Cases by Exposure Category

Following is the distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents by exposure category. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate.



Exposure Category


Estimated # of AIDS Cases, in 2003

Male

Female

Total


Male-to-male sexual contact
17,969

-

17,969


Injection Drug Use
6,353

3,096

9,449


Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use
1,877

-

1,877


Heterosexual contact
5,133

8,127

13,260


Other*
281

276

557

























Exposure Category


Estimated # of AIDS Cases, Through 2003

Male

Female

Total


Male-to-male sexual contact
440,887

-

440,887


Injection Drug Use
175,988

70,558

246,546


Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use
62,418

-

62,418


Heterosexual contact
56,403

93,586

149,989


Other*
14,191

6,535

20,726





* Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal, and risk not reported or not identified.



also, check these facts...


http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/PUBS/Facts/At-A-Glance.htm

Helen Lawson
Jan 3rd, 2006, 08:52 PM
How much will someone pay me if I go to a blood donation clinic this week and tell them I just got back from Cameroon, where I engaged in an orgy and shared needles with strangers.

Avatar
Jan 3rd, 2006, 09:27 PM
Man is the cruelest animal.

Ferosh
Jan 3rd, 2006, 09:39 PM
I was unaware of this until a little after Sept. 11 when the Red Cross had a blood drive. I was fuming that I waited in line for a very long time for absolutely nothing. Now I refuse to donate anything to the Red Cross and any other organization that descriminates against Gays. If my blood is not good enough for them, I guess my money is not good enough either. Until their regulations change they will not see a penny from me, and I wont feel bad about it.

griffin
Jan 3rd, 2006, 09:50 PM
Now I refuse to donate anything to the Red Cross and any other organization that descriminates against Gays. If my blood is not good enough for them, I guess my money is not good enough either. Until their regulations change they will not see a penny from me, and I wont feel bad about it.

I don't know if you'd really donate anyway, but before you start withholding charitable contributions to organizations you'd otherwise support, understand that this is a Federal regulation. They don't have much choice in the matter. (they DID have a choice about hyping 9/11 to get people to donate blood well after it became clear that 9/11 would not result in any actual need for additional blood donations - which had other blood banks around the country fuming - but that's another thread)

*JR*
Jan 3rd, 2006, 10:53 PM
I don't know if you'd really donate anyway, but before you start withholding charitable contributions to organizations you'd otherwise support, understand that this is a Federal regulation. They don't have much choice in the matter. (they DID have a choice about hyping 9/11 to get people to donate blood well after it became clear that 9/11 would not result in any actual need for additional blood donations - which had other blood banks around the country fuming - but that's another thread)
True, but...

The Red Cross lies in its fundraising (using the "current disaster" like the tsunami and Katrina) in raising money for its general fund. Not to say those things aren't worthwhile, but its still lying. And their blood business (yes, business) is a cash cow with HUGE markups, which play a role in the skyrocketing cost of health insurance).

Rtael
Jan 3rd, 2006, 11:40 PM
I think you need to calm down and get over it Kirt. Discrimination is a bitch. ;)


I know it's quite early in the new year, but I think we already have a candidate for "most retarded post of the year".

Ferosh
Jan 3rd, 2006, 11:44 PM
I know it's quite early in the new year, but I think we already have a candidate for "most retarded post of the year".

I fail to see how this is retarted? It's a big issue to homosexuals who want to donate blood but cannot due to the restrictions.

!<blocparty>!
Jan 4th, 2006, 12:01 AM
I know it's quite early in the new year, but I think we already have a candidate for "most retarded post of the year".

Huh?

Rocketta
Jan 4th, 2006, 01:15 AM
I was unaware of this until a little after Sept. 11 when the Red Cross had a blood drive. I was fuming that I waited in line for a very long time for absolutely nothing. Now I refuse to donate anything to the Red Cross and any other organization that descriminates against Gays. If my blood is not good enough for them, I guess my money is not good enough either. Until their regulations change they will not see a penny from me, and I wont feel bad about it.

so you're saying that in a time of crisis.....you would refuse all red cross aid?

*JR*
Jan 4th, 2006, 01:35 AM
so you're saying that in a time of crisis.....you would refuse all red cross aid?
Totally unfair question, akin to asking someone who was the victim of NO police discrimination if they'd have refused 2B rescued by that police force during Katrina. While technically non-governmental, the Red Cross has a Congressional Charter, perhaps the only charity to do so, and gets a lot of indirect government money.

Like the part of the very big markup on blood products paid by Medicare (and @ a lower profit where its Medicaid) that's passed on to them by hospitals, and local blood programs acting as middlemen. In both of these examples, the organization involved has a defacto monopoly.

Ferosh
Jan 4th, 2006, 01:37 AM
so you're saying that in a time of crisis.....you would refuse all red cross aid?

Yes.

Rocketta
Jan 4th, 2006, 01:45 AM
Yes.

rock on.. :rocker2:

Rocketta
Jan 4th, 2006, 01:50 AM
Totally unfair question, akin to asking someone who was the victim of NO police discrimination if they'd have refused 2B rescued by that police force during Katrina. While technically non-governmental, the Red Cross has a Congressional Charter, perhaps the only charity to do so, and gets a lot of indirect government money.

Like the part of the very big markup on blood products paid by Medicare (and @ a lower profit where its Medicaid) that's passed on to them by hospitals, and local blood programs acting as middlemen. In both of these examples, the organization involved has a defacto monopoly.

I'm sorry what does a government organization have to do with a charity organization and when do the police go around asking people to donate money so they can continue to do police work? :confused:

Shonami Slam
Jan 4th, 2006, 01:52 AM
in Israel the question is if you had homosexual sex since 1977 (whadafuck happened that year?!) and if so, you cannot donate.
otherwise - if you lived in the far east for 4 years, if you were in africa or other HIV high risk locations for more than 12 months, and of course - if you had unprotected sex.
I'm gay - but i don't practice gay sex (and virgin) and so i donate - i'm donating again on the 14th - we can donate once every 3 months.
the questionare here is pretty fair. if you can't donate because of one of the reasons - they ask of you to tell one of the nurses so that maybe they CAN use your blood, even if it's something else.
I'm vegitarian and my blood goes stright to cell dividering machines (centrifuges sp), even though i have a high hemoglobine count (around 14).
I like donating blood. it's volounteered here, by both staff and donaters - and there is a nice community feel most of the time, i really like it.
I have really good blood - it flows quickly and i never have problems - i fill a complete donation amount, never needed to stop in the middle.
i think people here didn't read carefully - they don't care if your'e gay - that's not it - but homosexual sex, no matter what you say IS statisticly more infectious. it's a fight worthy of fighting - but if, like me, the rules allow you to donate blood - please - life of other people comes first. discrimination after.

*JR*
Jan 4th, 2006, 02:23 AM
I'm sorry what does a government organization have to do with a charity organization and when do the police go around asking people to donate money so they can continue to do police work? :confused:
Plz reread my post that you're replying to. The Red Cross is awash in government money, principally because it runs the distribution of blood and its derivatives (plasma, platelets, etc.) like a business, and is indirectly paid for these things by Medicare, etc. (through the hospital system).

Rocketta
Jan 4th, 2006, 02:25 AM
Plz reread my post that you're replying to. The Red Cross is awash in government money, principally because it runs the distribution of blood and its derivatives (plasma, platelets, etc.) like a business, and is indirectly paid for these things by Medicare, etc. (through the hospital system).

I read your post and I think it's a long leap and has nothing to do with my point. You can repeat it all you want, I don't agree with your analogy.

Pheobo
Jan 4th, 2006, 04:15 AM
It shows the hypocrisy of these people definitely. They turn people away who are willing to donate perfectly good blood, and when people are dying from the lack of it they complain that not enough people are donating :rolleyes:

switz
Jan 4th, 2006, 04:28 AM
i understand the frustration/outrage but you do have to remember that hospitals have to be very careful about blood transfusions because they can get the arse sued out of them if something happens to a patient because of one.

there are actually a lot of discriminating factors i believe.

still i can definitely see why it would be upsetting when you're trying to do something so worthwhile with no hope of gain.

drake3781
Jan 4th, 2006, 04:35 AM
i understand the frustration/outrage but you do have to remember that hospitals have to be very careful about blood transfusions because they can get the arse sued out of them if something happens to a patient because of one.

there are actually a lot of discriminating factors i believe.

still i can definitely see why it would be upsetting when you're trying to do something so worthwhile with no hope of gain.

I agree with all of the above, including understanding the upset.
Realize as others have said, it's not because you are gay but because you engage in gay sex, which carries high risk of blood-borne disease.
In this case, the question is right and you should be turned away.
I'm completely for all sexual expressions, and not afraid to speak out about it, for the record.

"Sluggy"
Jan 4th, 2006, 08:54 AM
I understand that people are upset that they cant give blood - yes it bothers me too that I cant give blood, especially since I didnt engage in any risky behaviour as a teanager or adult. It bothers me, but I dont feel im being discrimated against. I dont think its discriminatory. If I want to benefit society there are so many ways you can do it. I can donate my time, I can donate money, I can encourage other people to contribute blood in blood drives. It seems like the decision makers play the odds, and the statistics show that there is a link between homosexual anal sex and HIV and hepatitis. Cant see how that is discriminatory to have a policy that prevents us from donating blood.

~ The Leopard ~
Jan 4th, 2006, 09:30 AM
I'm with rocketta on this one (which is unusual lately). Until testing is perfect, it's probably better to have, as one line of defence, an exclusion of anyone who does not tick all the lowest risk boxes. It's not like being unable to give blood is comparable to being imprisoned or something. No one has a right to have their blood accepted. It's something you offer, but whether the blood bank wants to accept the offer it is up to them.

"Sluggy"
Jan 4th, 2006, 09:31 AM
I'm with rocketta on this one (which is unusual lately). Until testing is perfect, it's probably better to have, as one line of defence, an exclusion of anyone who does not tick all the lowest risk boxes. It's not like being unable to give blood is comparable to being imprisoned or something. No one has a right to have their blood accepted. It's something you offer, but whether the blood bank wants to accept the offer it is up to them.

:worship: The Leopard for President! :worship:

GrandSlam05
Jan 4th, 2006, 09:50 AM
Fuck 'em. They can take their restrictions and shove 'em where the sun don't shine, and I'll keep my dirty blood.
I remember the first time I went to donate plasma a couple of years ago (they pay you for that shit), one of the restricts was: man who has had sex with another man SINCE 1979. Ever since then I was like "fuck it".

Andy.
Jan 4th, 2006, 09:53 AM
Thats terrible everyone is at risk on contracting an STD and they are always going on about how short in supply blood is,

ClaudiaZ-S
Jan 4th, 2006, 10:13 AM
:eek:

"Sluggy"
Jan 4th, 2006, 10:19 AM
Just a thought:

Does anyone else think people who are sensible enough to give up their time and donate blood in the first place, are LIKELY to be equally as sensible when it comes to having safe sex, and taking the necessary precautions in avoiding STD's? :confused:

Does anyone know what the percentages are like... for people with STD's that don't actually know they have anything?

I gave blood in Brooklyn once, it took about 5 minutes and no planning. Another time in Manhattan, it took 10 minutes. Yes, it is a nice thing to do, but it doesnt necessarily take an planning, nor is there much of an effort involved in the process. I'd equate it with walking someones dog, it takes a few minutes, It's slightly unpleasant (like piciking up the dogs poop), and you feel you've done something good for someone. But it's not like giving up the safety of your home and going to a famine-struck place.

*JR*
Jan 4th, 2006, 11:45 AM
I read your post and I think it's a long leap and has nothing to do with my point. You can repeat it all you want, I don't agree with your analogy.
Rocky, I neglected something last night, as it had been a very long day. The (American) Red Cross is a nearly public agency (hence the Congressional Charter, one of only a couple in existence) and has a virtual monopoly on the highly profitable business of selling blood and its derivatives.

As you may remember from the Microsoft case, "having a monopoly isn't illegal, abusing one is" (though they beat the rap re. having done so on appeal. Which has zero to do with whether the Red Cross abuses that power). So those Americans excluded are indirectly "donating" to the Red Cross every time a hospital orders blood products.

BTW, say "Hi" to Bullwinkle for me. :wavey:

Kart
Jan 4th, 2006, 01:54 PM
I refuse to give blood anymore because of the questionnaire which I find flawed as well as insulting.

There is no doubt that gay men represent a group at higher risk of STDs but if someone has been monogamous and safe in their practices and have had gotten themselves tested at a sexual health clinic and know themselves to be negative then they should be able to give blood.

If you're going to use a questionnaire that relies on someone telling the truth about what they get up to, you should trust them to tell the truth.

Blood stocks are always low and this country has to import it which is just sad when you think of the number of people that could donate safely.

griffin
Jan 4th, 2006, 05:41 PM
it's probably better to have, as one line of defence, an exclusion of anyone who does not tick all the lowest risk boxes.

Again, though, simply excluding any man who's had sexual contact with another man since 1979 (as is the case in the US), regardless of what it was or whether or not they used condoms, while ignoring, high-risk heterosexual behaviors DOES NOT DO THAT.

To me this is less about discrimination than it is about good public policy, or not having public policy reinforce misinformation.

!<blocparty>!
Jan 4th, 2006, 06:26 PM
I gave blood in Brooklyn once, it took about 5 minutes and no planning. Another time in Manhattan, it took 10 minutes. Yes, it is a nice thing to do, but it doesnt necessarily take an planning, nor is there much of an effort involved in the process. I'd equate it with walking someones dog, it takes a few minutes, It's slightly unpleasant (like piciking up the dogs poop), and you feel you've done something good for someone. But it's not like giving up the safety of your home and going to a famine-struck place.

5 minutes? The first time I went with a couple of friends... it took about 45 minutes. We had to fill in this form, get interviewed whilst a woman filled in another, get one of them pricks at the end of my finger (to test for potassium... or some substance I can't remember :o), sit on a bed whilst the machine takes the blood from you, and finally sit down in a chair for 15 minutes eating a bar of chocolate. The centre was empty @ that time, other people went later on and waited for ages. Kirt took the day off work. I'd call that an effort.

~ The Leopard ~
Jan 4th, 2006, 11:20 PM
Again, though, simply excluding any man who's had sexual contact with another man since 1979 (as is the case in the US), regardless of what it was or whether or not they used condoms, while ignoring, high-risk heterosexual behaviors DOES NOT DO THAT.

To me this is less about discrimination than it is about good public policy, or not having public policy reinforce misinformation.

I was agreeing with Rocketta's general reasoning, not any specific question that gets asked in America. Yes, I do think that that particular question sounds over the top.

But I think that the question that apparently is being asked in Australia - about male-to-male sex in the last 12 months - is reasonable. Whether the Australian epidemiological experience could also justify some question about heterosexual anal sex in the last 12 months is something I don't know the answer to. I'd like to see a lot of figures. My sense of it is that Australia has been pretty successful in containing AIDS - except for obvious high risk groups - compared with the US, and that such a question may not be needed. However, I'd have to defer to what the figures show or what the epidemiologists tell me.

As you'd appreciate, I want a simple list of questions that anyone can understand but which also broadly reflect epidemiological experience in the country/city concerned. Like you, I just want good public policy. I don't want any particular groups to feel discriminated against, but I'm prepared to risk a bit of that in these particular circumstances where safety is at issue and no one is actually being punished, just told "Thank you, but we won't accept your offer of blood."

If someone asked me, say, "have you been involved in a polyamorous arrangement at any time since 1979?" I'd think it was a stupid question, and that it was crazy that I couldn't give blood because my answer to that would be "yes". OTOH, if there was robust Australian epidemiological evidence that people who have been involved in such arrangements in, say, the last 12 months are a statistically high risk group I'd be happy for a simple question about that to be there without making it complicated and going into issues of condom use, polyfidelity, blood testing, etc.

hablo
Jan 4th, 2006, 11:32 PM
They refused my blood in the U.S. cause I've lived in Africa :tape:
oh well, their loss cause I have type 0-

*JR*
Jan 4th, 2006, 11:39 PM
Joui, as usual your logic is impeccable. But Griffin is a pure PC ideologue. For example, she once stridently defended the NYC gay community having delayed (gay-friendly) Mayor Ed Koch shutting down the "bath houses" that gay men patronized for anonymous, generally unprotected sex in the 80's, by buying into the BS that the safe sex education there outweighed the increased risk of all the "ready and willing" partners. Even though many or most were reportedly (by the gay-friendly Village Voice) too stoned to understand a word of it. (Griffin lives in a world of her own ideological "creation"). :rolleyes:

~ The Leopard ~
Jan 4th, 2006, 11:51 PM
I'm not going to get into the issue of gay bathhouses, JR, though we've discussed it some other time.

I love griffin. She's a delightful person to discuss things with.

Scotso
Jan 7th, 2006, 12:48 AM
It's bigotry.

charmedRic
Jan 7th, 2006, 02:11 PM
Being a student at PSU where we have a blood drive ever 52 days or so, it's extremely hard to deal with the fact that just because I'm gay I can't donate blood. So instead I donate my time, as opposed to raising hell. I go in for every blood drive and work from 9am to 5pm, greeting, signing in, promoting and helping around the grounds. It is not discrimination in the sense that they're out to exclude gay people, they are just eliminating the high risk groups. And not just for HIV but also for other viruses and the mad cow disease. So please, before you grab the torches and the pick-forks go read the damn restriction page.

The last blood drive I worked at was for the PSU vs. MSU Blood Cup Challenge. During the day that the Circle K (my service organization) was in charge of Operations in conjunction with the Red Cross, we had 275 people come in. Out of those, 25 were deferred upon arrival because of: Tattoos, Piercings, England or Africa. Then we had another 50 or more deferred while in the questioning process, most of them had either low blood iron or slightly above average temperatures.

What I'm trying to say is that. Yes, it is extremely outrageous that those of us that have been responsible all our lives and are negative Can't Donate. But it's not necesarily a decision based entirely on ideology. There's also an economics part to it. The blood you donate has to be stored, logged, processed, divided, tested (up to 3 times), then stored again before being shipped. This racks up the cost BIG TIME, and hospitals pay for the blood they get.

So in essence. Until the FDA gets off its ideology pedestal and decides to easen restrictions OR testing becomes a heck of a lot cheaper and faster ... you're probably going to be deferred for any of the following reasons:

Acupuncture (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#acu), Age (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#age), Allergy, Stuffy Nose, Itchy Eyes, Dry Cough (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#all), Antibiotics (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#ant), Aspirin (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#asp), Asthma (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#ast), Birth Control (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#bir), Bleeding Disorders (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#ble), Blood Pressure, High (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#blohigh), Blood Pressure, Low (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#blolow), Blood Transfusion (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#blotra), Cancer, Chronic Illnesses (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#chr), Cold, Flu (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#col), eutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#cjd), Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, Variant, CJD);"Mad Cow Disease" (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#vcjd), Dental Procedures (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#den), Donation Intervals (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#don), Heart Disease (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#headis), Heart Murmur, Heart Valve Disorder (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#heamur), Hemochromatosis (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#hem), Hemoglobin, Hematocrit, Blood Count (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#hemhem), Hepatitis, Jaundice (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#hepjau), Hepatitis Exposure (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#hepexp), Herpes (see Sexually Transmitted Disease) (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#std), HIV, AIDS (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#hiv), Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRP) (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#hor), HPV (see Sexually Transmitted Disease) (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#std), Hypertension, High Blood Pressure (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#hyp), Immunization, Vaccination (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#imm), Infections (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#inf), Insulin (bovine) (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#ins), Intravenous Drug Use (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#int), Malaria (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#mal), Medications (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#med), Organ/Tissue Transplants (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#org), Piercing (ears, body),, Electrolysis (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#pie), Pregnancy, Nursing (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#pre), Sexually Transmitted Disease (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#std), Sickle Cell (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#sic), Syphilis/Gonorrhea (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#syp), Tattoo (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#tat), Tuberculosis (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#tub), Travel Outside of U.S., Immigration (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#tra), Vaccinations (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#vac), Venereal Diseases (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#ven), Weight (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#wei)

It Sucks. But in the mean time through education, lobbying and volunteering we can still be a part of those 3 lives that get saved with every donation.