They asked for my input !!!
I wrote a journal awhile ago on blood donation and the exclusion of gay men from donating. Today I received a survey from Canadian Blood Services. It was an anonymous survey sent to 40,000 blood donors in Canada. Lots of questions. Everything from how I feel about the time it takes to donate blood to how friendly, professional and knowledgeable the clinic staff is to do I feel my privacy is being respected.
Here are two question ( verbatim ) that relate to the ideas I raised in my previous journal. ( And no I don't have enough ego to think that Canadian Blood Services commissioned a survey because of some journal written in some blog - For one thing there hasn't been enough time between the writing of the journal and the survey coming out. ;-)
#27 -Do you think that deciding who should or should not donate blood should be based on ....
1 Mainly on scientific evidence only
2 Mainly on the concerns of people who receive blood transfusions
3 Should consider both scientific evidence and concerns of people who receive blood
# 28 a) Do you think that men that have sex with men should be allowed to donate ?
Yes or Nob) This question relates to circumstances under which you think men who have sex with men should be allowed to donate. ( Choose one statement that you most agree with )
A man who has had sex with another man should be allowed to donate if ...
1. he has not had sex with another man since 1977 ( as is done now )
2. he has not had sex with another man recently
3. he is in a long-term relationship
4. he meets all of the other criteria for donating ( it should not matter whether his sexual partner is male of female )
5. Other ( Please Specify )
[ Option # 4 above regarding the existing criteria. One is currently asked whether one knows the sexual history of their sex partners. I assume that if the history isn't know the blood is not used in any way. ]
Just to be clear, the Canadian Blood Services isn't saying they are changing the criteria for donations. They are just doing a survey of people who already donate. I was chosen randomly, one of 40,000, out of about 1.2 million people that donate annually. There were only the two questions about donations from gay men out of a 12 page survey.
Just thought I would fiddle up a journal about a topic I actually know something about with information that the general public might not have. Perhaps a first for me. Imagine that ;-)
- willy be frantic's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
Willy!!
Always a treat when you post.
I answered #1, and #4, respectively.
I don't care if someone is gay, straight, queer, questioning, whatever. If you have been having unprotected sex/exchanging fluids with anyone, of any gender, you shouldn't give blood until you've been tested, and then tested again 6 months later.
That's IMHO, of course. Your views may vary.
That's strange
That's the way I answered the questions. Maybe it's not your views may vary, maybe it's your mileage may vary ;-)
In fact there is nothing in the process that pre-tests donors or requires them to have two tests six months apart. I believe it can take some time for a virus to incubate and therefore show up positive on any test.
The safeguard to date has been to dis-allow donors who self-identify as being in a higher risk group. And so far the system is working. Of course a large part of why it is working is that all blood donations are tested for HIV. They have been doing a test for West Nile for a couple of years now too. That's the way a number of people with West Nile have been diagnosed.
The blood supply is as safe as it can be made. It's good to know that they are thinking about the future and how to keep the blood supply safe and plentiful.
good journal entry, willy
very informative. Banning same sex guys from donating...that 1977 bit - pretty discriminatory for sure. The one year deal you mention sounds fine, depending on lifestyle. Being gay isn't reason enough to reject donations. Monogamy isn't restricted to heteros.
Kind of you ....
... to comment, thanks. As you say it is practices of the donor and, by extension the partner, that might make blood at risk, not the gender of the partner.
I will have to review my previous journal and figure out what I said about a 'one year deal'. I think it was that a year is a reasonable time to wait for the incubation period on HIV infections. If a person was catching the HIV virus, a year after the unsafe practice the tainted blood would show positive in the test that all donated blood gets. So excluding a donor for a year after any unsafe practice would ensure that no tainted blood enters the supply chain.
'Course I am just speculating on the incubation period. I am not a doctor and it's been years since I even played doctor.