On September 12th, 2001, my friends and I spent 5 hours in line waiting to give blood – before the news came in the following days that no one at the WTC site would need it. They had all perished.
When my turn came to sit down with the nurse, she looked over my questionnaire and told me I couldn’t donate. I had answered the question “Have you ever had sex in exchange for money?” with a “Yes.” That made me a hepatitis/HIV risk. Of course, I don’t have those diseases, but sex workers have a much higher instance of them than the average person, so for simplicity’s sake, Hema-Quebec had these sweeping rules. The rules also included men who had sexual relations with other men, and intravenous drug users. Those three categories have a lower instance of safe practices and a higher risk of disease. And frankly, no one wants their 5-year-old daughter with leukemia to be transfused with the blood of a whore or a junkie.
On the other hand, queer activists who like to pretend that gay culture doesn’t promote unsafe sex practices believe they should be given a pass when it comes to the rules of safe blood donation. And now our cowed government wants to make a “goodwill” gesture that trumps all common sense.
The federal blood agency says reducing the time men must wait before donating blood after homosexual activity would show the gay and bisexual community it is serious about change.
The Toronto Star reported Thursday that Canadian Blood Services believes a lifetime prohibition against accepting blood from men who have had sex with men at least once since 1977 is no longer justified and that it plans to ask Health Canada to relax the rules.
The agency is funding a $500,000 grant to research a new policy — which could mean changing the donor criteria to focus on specific high-risk sexual activities rather than orientation — but a spokeswoman said Thursday that it will not wait for those findings before approaching the federal government about shortening the deferral period.
They already focus on high risk activities – prostitution and homosexuality. How much more specific do we need to be? Should the questionnaire include a list of positions that would make the average donor blush? How about pictograms?
This is a political move to appease a very vocal special interest group who makes its living off of hurt feelings. And people will run the risk of becoming infected with myriad diseases because of it.
I can’t donate either. Twenty years ago I was in an airplane crash and had some head injuries. I said so on the form and they treated me like a criminal. I would have to find those doctors and get a “doctor’s note” saying I was healthy. Right, 20 years later.
Aren’t the donations tested before using them? There has got to be a tax payer funded program to “manage” the recipient’s problems after the damage is done. Research, Invest, Manage…what a JOB.