jan
17
2006
test all of it
there is quite a commotion going on here in south africa with regards to donating blood and who's a risk and who isn't. before you donate blood you fill in a form stating your skin colour, sexual orientation, etc. if you're gay, you're a risk, according to the sanbs.
the gla has now claimed that 120 of it's members have donated blood without disclosing their sexual orientation. i think that's malicious. because if it's true, the sanbs is going to have to 'destroy' a whole batch of donated blood. some potentially bad and the rest absolutely fine.
what's the answer though? it's time consuming and simple but fool proof. test all blood that is donated. discrimination on skin colour, social status or sexual orientation (among other things) is unacceptable.
Posted by sarah | debate
Rocketman | 2006-02-01 00:32:25
Let's look at this from a different perspective...
How many of the GLA member who know that they are not HIV+ would be happy to accept an blood transfusion from a randomly selected member of their organization?
The SANBS is concentrating on the safety of the recipient and not on some percieved right of the donor.
A donation is in essence a gift. The giving of a gift involves two parties, the willing giver and the willing recipient. Since when does the giver have the right to force his gift on an unwilling recipient?
So when the SANBS says to the donor, "I don't want your gift because I believe it carries a serious health risk", I don't care if the GLA throws a tantrum.
I am a regular blood donor that has donated over 50 units and I can tell you now that I don't like getting the third degree every time I donate. I can understand the need for the awkward questions however. Also note that the questionare is not a one time thing to become a donor. You have to fill it in EVERY time you donate.
The primary line of defense the SANBS has on rejecting high risk donors is the honesty of the donor. Testing the blood for infectious agents is only the secondary line of defense. If you lie on the self exclusion questionaire (that is what they call it) then your blood will be accepted. There is a catch however...
The donor form you fill in is a legally binding contract. If you are caught out in your lie you will be taken to court if a recipient suffers because of your lie.
If you are not a blood donor I suggest that you go to the local SANBS office an collect a copy of the donor form. You will find that the form does not explicitly exclude gays. It explicitly reject people who admit to practicing high risk sex.
The hetro male that sleeps around or consorts with sex workers is also excluded. I'm prety sure that more people that fall in this category than there are gays.
What about the long list of non sex related exclusion criteria on the form? Things like being on medication that can be dangerous for the recipient, being in contact with someone with an infections disease such as chickenpox, visiting a malaria area, being aenemic, being dangerously underweight, having high blood pressure etc. No one seems to be making a fuss about these exclusion criteria.
Ian | 2006-01-23 11:55:53
I agree with Warren. I don't regard myself as homophobic, racist, or ignorant. I do regard what the SANBS as a factually based process whereby they ensure the blood they accept has the lowest possible risk of infection, before they test it.
While I am absolutely certain anal sex is regularly practiced by a whole load of very straight people, I can assure you it is rather more frequent an occurence in the gay male population.
In fact, I think there should be a drive toward getting more lesbian donors... surely they're the lowest risk category?!
sarah | 2006-01-23 09:20:06
understood that it's an expensive process to test all the blood that is donated. it would cost our society more if donated blood were to infect people rather than save their lives.
basing our society on international trends is deceiving. we're not europe, asia, or the us! we're africa! and if you think unprotected anal sex is only practiced among gay men in our society, you're greatly mistaken...
i agree with the triangle project that the question on the blood donation form should rather ask if the donator has anal sex in the past 5 years, rather than question the donators sexuality.
in my post i never agreed with what the gla has claimed to have done. in fact i called it malicious. maybe a very weak word for how i actually feel about they supposed actions.
the triangle project (which seems to be authentic and actually have members) on the other hand has entered into dialogue with the sanbs to try and sort this out. i respect that and actually agree with them. i'm sure they are responsible gay men out there who do want to help the sanbs!
warrenski | 2006-01-21 16:51:58
Well, I'm sorry to say, but I'm on the side of the SANBS and their current policy. Although all blood donations received are rigorously tested for viruses and diseases - and to do so costs upwards of R130 per unit - their policy (which is based on international research) is in place to minimise the risk of receiving infected blood from a group of people that are regarded as being high-risk.
GLA themselves have openly admitted that many of the 100+ donors responsible for last week's controversy were unaware of their HIV-status and other of their members were confirmed to have full-blown AIDS. Surely this statement alone is enough to reinforce the notion that homosexuals are a high-risk category of potential donors?
For the GLA to urge to their members, even those with full-blown AIDS, to donate blood is an absolute disrespect for human life and a completely selfish and childish "us-to" attitude. The rights of patient receiving a blood transfusion should be the only rights that are considered here - blood donation is a privillege, something that an individual needs to qualify for, and not a right! Life's full of choices, and anyone who engages in male-to-male sex has made a choice to automatically exclude themselves from being a blood donor.