I didn't give blood yesterday

I have given blood at every school blood drive in every school I have ever worked at. But this time I didn't. For the first time in my professional life I am out. So instead of giving blood I encouraged others to do so. Being out has been great on many levels but yesterday sucked. Walking around without the stretchy bandage made me feel lesser. I had a student ask me why I didn't give blood and I replied it was complicated. He paused, gave a knowing glance, and said I get it. It is good to know my students largely don't care if I am gay but it still sucked not to be able to give. My O negative blood could have saved a life, instead it just sat in my veins making me feel lesser. What a waste.

On edit Per government policy a man who has had sex with another man, even once, since 1977 can't give blood.

How come, hoping it's more personal and not some sort of a rule?

Sorry you had a bad day but glad you're out. :hug:

sex with even one male since 1977 and no blood donation.

I've had issues with anemia and haven't donated in a while. I'm a bit sick to my stomach knowing this is the case. Are there any other rules for hetero people having sex, etc. ? This seems rather archaic and definitely discriminatory.

both have time limits (one year I think)

Except being paid for sex.

I'm another O- whose blood is not wanted, because my partner is a bisexual male. I could forgo sex for a year, however, if I really wanted to donate that badly. The fact that I use condoms is irrelevant. I could have all the unprotected, indiscriminate sex with straight men I like, never get tested, and donate like my blood was going out of style.

This issue is one of my biggest pet peeves.

I will now wait for the apologists of this homophobic, archaic policy to arrive and spew their nonsense.

I was asked if I had had sex with a drug addict or gay man. It had been at least ten years, and I still wasn't allowed to give blood. I don't know why people are pretending otherwise.

cured AFAIK, and I haven't been able to give blood in 25 years. I don't quite understand that either.

I don't know the issue there. Some treatments of some cancers would leave you anemic but other than that I don't know.

is allowed to give blood. Think of all the blood they're losing out on.

they continually run out but still reject perfectly healthy people.

B) Guidelines for cancer survivors here:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_1_4x_Donation_by_Cancer_Survivors.asp

Blood donation

Some people who have had cancer are not allowed to donate blood. This is done partly to protect the donor, but it may also add an extra margin of safety for the person who receives the blood.

While cancer has very rarely been transmitted through transplants of solid organs such as kidneys, cancer due to blood transfusion has not been reported in the medical literature. This would suggest that the chance of getting cancer from a blood transfusion is extremely small. Even if cancer cells were present in donated blood, the immune system of the person getting the blood would destroy the cells. A possible exception might be in transfusion recipients with weakened immune systems, who might not be able to fend off the cancer cells. Because of this slight possibility, in certain cases cancer survivors may not be allowed to donate blood for other people.

Different blood collection centers may have slightly different standards for allowing cancer survivors to donate. For example, the American Red Cross guidelines allow people who have had cancer to donate if the cancer was treated with surgery or radiation at least 5 years ago and there has been no recurrence. Potential donors who have had only low-risk skin cancers that were removed or destroyed (and therefore have little risk of cancerous cells entering the bloodstream) may not have to wait that long. People who were treated for cancer with chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, or immunotherapy cannot donate blood. Nor can anyone who has had leukemia or lymphoma.

Other blood donation centers may require shorter times since cancer treatment was completed, or be different in other ways. Ultimately, it's up to the doctor in charge of the donor center to decide whether a person is allowed to donate. If you have questions about whether you can donate, please contact the blood collecting center in your community.

Some cancer survivors may find these precautions frustrating. They may be eager to donate blood to help others with cancer, just as they were helped by transfusions during their treatment. Everyone should remember, though, that the most important goal in blood banking is to ensure the safety of the blood supply and to protect transfusion recipients.

will convince someone else they can try again. And thanks for your good wishes, PeaceNikki.

He REALLY wanted to donate while he had a brief remission and was heart-broken he couldn't give back. I felt horrible, but promised him I'd work to recruit 5 new people on each drive in his behalf.

All of the reasons people can't donate; disqualifying circumstances for health reason or personal misgivings, makes it that much more important that those of us who can, do. Regularly.

but I'd feel uncomfortable doing so...

luckily I am on a few prescriptions which also count me out because they'd make the blood recipient as loopy as I am.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The donor questions are not some court document. If you had actually wanted to give blood you could have. When it came to that question just answer no. But you wanted to hold on to your precious principles and let others die because of it. Sick.

I have lied before, and likely will again (giving blood in summer drives etc) but I haven't any right to make others lie.

walking in the OP's shoes, so I suggest you get off your high horse.

I think that is deplorable.

First, as I pointed out not once, not twice, but three seperate times (twice in direct response to you) I have given before and intend to give again. You evidently didn't or can't read.

Second, I gave my students who signed up to donate or worked the drive points on their test to do so.

But no, I am not going to directly lie to people and put them on the snitch or no snitch hotseat.

Did you hear me?

Get OUT of my LIFE.

and find it deplorable that an outdated, ignorant rule prevents them.

Too bad to assume and pass judgement rather than finding out why someone does what they do.

A man who has unprotected sex with 200 unknown women in one year can give blood but a man who had protected sex one time with one man can't. This policy is incredibly outrageous and unAmerican.

Just tell them you haven't had the type of sex acts they are asking about. Simple isn't it? I donate blood every two months and they always ask if I have been to foreign countries. I have been to 37 countries in recent years but I just tell them no. Simple.

don't know you did that. As pointed out in my OP I actually typically did lie, but since the people running the drive know, I can't very well do that now.

even if your blood may be infected, but you think people who are honest about the alleged "risk factors" they may identify with are letting people die because they don't donate?

I'm confuzzled by your logic. :crazy:

Every bit of blood donated is tested for blood related diseases. It matters not what the answers to the questions were.

some blood borne diseases actually have no test except to wait for symptoms. Mad cow is an example of that. In your case, depending upon the country, you might actually be putting people at risk.

Than eating in any foreign country. I believe in rationally reading the literature on these topics and making an informed decision based on your circumstances. I find you make better decisions doing that than relying on people who write regulations and rules based on the slimmest of chances.

Why is the Red Cross being forced to even ask this question if all a guy has to do is say "No, sweetie, of course I didn't have sex with a man since 1977"? Forcing people to even answer this question shows how discriminatory it is, since any answer any male donor gives is completely unverifiable. In fact, one could argue that it is designed solely to humiliate and intimidate any "men who have sex with men" donors, rather than to accomplish any real medical goal.

and gays are much more at risk for AIDS than others in this country. Some people are more "at risk" for other transmittable diseases. I fall into two other "at risk" categories, so I've been unable to donate blood for several years.

Not everything is a fucking political statement, and I trust medical personnel to make the best informed decisions regarding our blood supply.

And, yeah, it pisses me off when people lie and put other people's lives at risk.

oy, just because some of the rules are idiotic does not mean ALL the rules are and should be ignored.

if you've been traveling in nations that have not wiped out blood-borne diseases that we have wiped out state-side, then you are endangering every person who receives that blood.

my older brother came home from a business trip to India with appendicitis induced by malaria. I would be much less comfortable accepting blood from him for the next five years than I would be accepting blood from a screened and clean gay man.

And please tell me how you're going to guarantee that.

but the government and the medical industry has these neat little tests and machines and equipment and all that make fun noises and are really shiny that they can use to find the bad stuff.

and yes, sometimes something gets through, no system is completely perfect.

and yes it would suck, but if I were about to die on the operating table because the doctors didn't have my blood type, I'd take the chance and accept blood from an expanded blood bank that also screens men who have sex with other men.

I'm not saying we should let someone carrying a blood-borne disease donate. what I'm saying is the current rules need reformed and updated.

thanks for ruining my keyboard... :spray:

You obviously have never donated blood or you would have known that.

that's a "well, duh" kind of thing everyone knows.

but if all blood is screened and clean, then why forbid gay men from donating?

the theory is that the CDC accepts that on occasion something does slip through, and since OMG TEH GAY SEX can mean AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, they ban all of the blood, which is a "use a nuke to take out an ant hill" kind of logic that contributes to shortages.

There are all sorts of restrictions such as certain foreign country travel which are using a nuke to take out an anthill. I agree with an earlier poster they are afraid of lawsuits.

Not since the red cross asked me not to come back, back in the 90s. I was at the district office for a district blood drive. They spent 30 minutes, trying repeatedly, to find a good vein in my right arm. When that didn't work, they tried again with the left. They finally hooked the bag up after the 3rd stick in the left arm. After 45 minutes, they had half a pint.

They gave up. I left with my inner arms purple.

It still happens whenever I have to give more blood for blood tests than a finger prick. Nobody can ever find my veins.

I've still always felt bad for not donating.

I'm glad that you are able to be "out" and still work in our profession. It's a tough place for male educators. I've worked with a few gay teachers, and they not only weren't out, they made sure that they lived a long commute away from the communities that they worked in.

Humans need to evolve much further along the path of respect and humility before any group or individual that is not white, male, straight, and christian truly has equal rights and equal respect.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

-A friendly reminder from your pals at the FDA.

and I absolutely am against the discrimination I see against gay folk. No one ever asks ME, a straight gal, if I PRACTICE SAFE SEX. :thumbsdown:

Seriously - congratulations :thumbsup:

It only applies to gay people too, right? What about straight people who have lots of unprotected sex with lots of different partners? Don't they think maybe they could be HIV positive or have some other blood borne disease? It's outright discrimination. Anyone who says it is not, is full of it.

The blood banks know the epidemiology on risk behaviors. I think they were duly chastised in the early days of HIV for their lack of due diligence and established these broad blanket policies as a result. I can't fault them, overall, even in light of current antibody tests that are a far cry from the early '85 tests. I would trust the blood supply if they relied on the current generation of antibody tests, but they are pretty skittish.

It's not a political or social issue for me. It's fairly personal. I have HIV, yet can understand their extremely narrow guidelines for donations.

The vectors for HIV are primarily unprotected sex and shared needle use. The sources of infection in the US are primarily men who have sex with men, injection drug users and the sexual partners of both, *whether* male or female.

Blood banks have taken a conservative, broad brush approach to blood donations. While I disagree with the necessity, I understand their approach.

you lied on that question about having sex with a man, even once, since 1977?
Granted, I know that you are the only person who knows how safe you've been, and I have heard that the Red Cross works very hard to keep the blood supply "safe," so it's OK.
But didn't it feel better to be out, living your true life, than lying?

I have O negative blood and if I don't give I might not have blood when I need it. On most levels it feels better but on days like that, well not so much.

I lived in the UK until Oct 1980, and the new regulations came out that if you'd lived there for more than 6 months between 1980 and 2000 (or some-such), they didn't want the blood. I'd already given a gallon by then when the regulations came out.

Your donated blood is tested and screened. What is the problem?

I'm obviously not infected but I don't like lying either.

It doesn't make you lesser because you can't give blood. We all have contributions that we can make to the world, and giving blood is just one of many.

I can't give blood any more either, because I have a neurological disease that may possibly be transmitted through the blood. Nobody ever told me that I can't give blood, and I'm not sure if I would pass the screening history that most blood banks give today. But in my opinion, even if I passed it, it wouldn't be worth the risk unless there was a dire emergency where blood was badly needed and not enough donors could be found.

First, regardless of homophobia and fear stigmas associated with this disease, some groups are at risk for infection by many many times more than other groups. The most obvious groups are gays and African Americans. I don't see anybody putting it out there but the fact of the matter is that gay men practice anal penetration, which is far riskier for transmission of STD's than (most) vaginal intercourse. This is because the tissue tears more easily, the anus is not equipped for natural lubrication as well as the vagina is. This is not homophobia, this is medical fact. In some HIV stricken regions in Africa, men desire "dry" vaginas and women will even pack herbs to achieve this. Again, this is not a moral evaluation that these groups are drastically higher risk for HIV transmission, it is medical fact. African Americans are incarcerated at astronomically higher rates. In prison, sexual contact occurs in a setting where condoms and lubrication are not only unavailable but often outright banned. As such, anal penetration is far riskier than it would have been with adequate lubrication and condom use and HIV transmissionrate skyrockets. Once again, not racist frothing but statements of medical fact.

I don't think posters have been truthful with themselves and others in this thread. There is a middle ground between insensitivity and walking on glass.

edited for grammarrrr

provided they had sex at least once within the last 32 years, they can't give either.

and I'm sorry to hijack your thread; I was merely pointing out how there is some real misinformation in this thread. And I guess that *GASP* suggesting (****--->SOME<----****LOOK MOM I QUALIFIED MY STATEMENT EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMED EXTREMELY OBVIOUS TO ME AT THE TIME I FIRST SAID IT!) SOME gay men practice anal penetration and SOME AA men are incarcerated makes me David Duke and Jerry Falwell all in one wholesome package. Oh well.

And some straight people practice anal penetration.

The problem with this rule is that it is not based in medical fact, it is based on broad generalizations that are relics of the old days when the Reaganites were convinced that gay men are all promiscious and have HIV and straight people only have missionary position vaginal sex after marriage.

I don't think anyone is denying the physiological realities of anal intercourse in this thread. What I am questioning is the discrimination involved when all men who have had any kind of sexual contact with another man in the past 30+ years are banned for life from donating blood, while a woman is welcomed with open arms even if she repeatedly has the riskiest kind of sexual contact with a man or a woman or multiple people of any gender.

An incarcerated person who has had unprotected anal intercourse with a HIV+ or undetermined person is at risk due to the unprotected anal intercourse with a with a HIV+ or undetermined person. A woman who has unprotected anal intercourse with a HIV+ or undetermined person is at risk due to unprotected anal intercourse with a HIV+ or undetermined person. A man who has unprotected anal intercourse with a HIV+ or undetermined person is at risk due to unprotected anal intercourse with a HIV+ or undetermined person.

Saying that all African Americans or gay men are at higher risk is ridiculous.

I agree that the discrimination inherent in barring all African Americans or gay men is discrimination.

And yes, heterosexuals do have anal intercourse also.

I think some people really are just looking for a fight, honestly I do.

The behavior of unprotected anal intercourse with a with a HIV+ or undetermined person is what increases risk, but all gay men are put into that category and banned from donating blood. I was talking about the donating blood guidelines.

but my general points still stand. There is nothing inherent about gayness that makes you more suscetible; I would never make that point.

just as some are genetically protected. And yes, some prevalent HIV researchers think that the genetic trait is more prevalent in those with certain genetic ancestries. So it's not just all about behavior, there are many other factors as well.

Since genetically they are more vulnerable to becoming alcoholics. Not picking a fight, but adding a comparison. Genetics can predispose, behavior gets you there.

Do you have more info on that research as I am interested in finding out more? I hadn't heard of it, but have been out of the hiv/aids education loop recently, working other health care issues. Thanks.

and yes I'm quite aware of sexual practices of others. I'm not even discussing the blood donation ban which is honestly pointless. I'm just talking about people jumping all over each other without recognizing the truth here.

The most "promiscuous" straight man does not have the same risk of AIDS that even a less "promiscuous" gay man has.

THAT is a medical, statistical fact - not based on prejudices or stereotypes.

There is a reason that "generalizations" are made and used. They are based in fact.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3302434&mesg_id=3307181

"There is a middle ground between insensitivity and walking on glass."
As a heterosexual, I have been intrigued and really curious what that "gay sex" is I hear of from some, since I'd like a toaster too, if I've done the right thing. And I've done a lot. :sarcasm:

Of course behavior is the issue. But saying that all African Americans or gay men are at higher risk is ridiculous since only some, but not all, have risky behavior.

I agree that the discrimination inherent in barring all African Americans or gay men is discrimination.

all South African women artifically dry their vaginas. I'm just being honest about where the increased risks are from. I'm sorry if that makes me homophobic, racist, or sexist in someone's eyes.

The behavior of unprotected anal intercourse with a with a HIV+ or undetermined person is what increases risk, but African Americans and gay men are all put into that category.

I agree that the discrimination inherent in barring all African Americans or gay men is discrimination.

but the tangent the thread took. I think the ban is pointless from a public health perspective and harmful from an ethical perspective. It doesn't change that fact that some populations are at higher risk for infection and it's worth it to me to risk offending fragile sensibilities to clarify WHY that is.

...in Germany during the period of 1980-96. Mad Cow.

I'm a universal donor and a so-called "baby saver," too, but I'm out of the donation game for what looks like forever.

It's ridiculous.

I don't know what else to say.

so I can't give on two accounts.