01/02/2005
Want my Bone Marrow?
No, was the answer.
I've never saved anyone's life.
So why not today?, I thought to myself when walking pass the campus bone marrow drive stall this morning.
I'm exactly what they want, since minority doners are hard to come by. I dragged P along to the blood drawing room and signed our names on the blackboard.
But whilst filling in our forms, a big-fond sentence stared back at me: People at risk of HIV.AIDS infection are not permitted to donate bone marrow. Need to guess what their definition of being at risk? Men having sex with other men.
BUT WHY?
Surely you HAVE to screen EVERYONE for all sort of nasty bugs before ANY transfusion, regardless of sexual preferences?! Is it NOT far more important to access to as many potential donors as possible? Surely str8 people get HIV too? Can't RISK be redefined as "People engaged in unsafe sex"?
What if I AM that 1 in a 1,000,000 person who has the same HLA blood type as that Asian lymphoma kid on the poster?
I grieved not so much of the discrimination, as the good that I'd have done.
01:40 Posted in The Bitch, The HomoNATural | Permalink | Comments (5) | Email this | Tags: gayliving
Comments
The government has succeeded in almost ending HIV transmissions through transfusions through these safety measures. It is disturbing that some people want to put public safety at risk to forward a political agenda.
(VP: Shame that they haven't succeeded in ending stupidity. It is disturbing that some people can't tell bone marrow from blood. It is even more disturbing that some people superstitiously believe HIV tests are only fit for screening heterosexual blood. Each year, >20000 new US patients are seeking unrelated BM donors. Only 20000 got lucky- a grand total since 1987- that's less than 10% of all. The rest? Sorry, no matching donors. Dead.
Yes life-saving is on my agenda, professionally AND beyond. That's why I chose to design blood tests.)
Posted by: Dan | 06/02/2005
Man, that just bites, i gave blood for that test a while ago, and i don't think homosexuality was on that list, I'm not American so i guess it goes by different criteria where i live.
There was a big deal story about this few years ago though, HIV being more common in Africa, and so the pretty large Ethiopian community weren't allowed to give blood at all. The most outrageous thing about it is that the blood bank didn't even tell them, if an Ethiopian person were to give blood the nurse would smile, give them that cup of juice and say good-by, then just throw the blood away.
Anyhow, it was uncovered and nowadays, after a long political straggle, people of the Ethiopian community are allowed to give blood, which is tested for HIV just like everyone else blood.
As far as i know, the statistic today doesn't show that gay people got more HIV then straight, the dumb luck made it so that HIV first appeared in the gay community, but i think a lot of the stuff about HIV being more transmitted in anal sex then it is in vaginal sex is basically propaganda.
And even if it is true, it's still doesn't mean that the blood bank should just rule out a whole section of the population just cause some and very few of them maybe have a slightly higher chance of having HIV, all the blood's tested anyway, and so, this is really just stupid.
I do think that you should approach some human rights organization and have them informed, cause this is simply predigest.
(VP: thanks. didn't know about that Ethiopian incident!)
Posted by: lilly | 09/02/2005
Lilly,
The vast share of new AIDS cases are homosexuals.
http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/02/05/2002_new_aids_diagnoses.html
(VP: Which DOES NOT mean all homosexuals are HIV infected.
What do you say about the 25% of HIV-infected North American who are FEMALE. Or that almost ALL of these women got infected through HETEROSEXUAL intercourse? Or the fact that >50% of AIDS cases in America between 1985-2002 affected African Americans.
Why are your bigotry and discrimination so narrowly focused on gays?
64% of ALL HIV-infected people are Africans. So according to you no African should donate anything and African Blood banks/organ transplant/etc should ship in tissue supply from outer space then?
Should I remind you that the people who originally opposed to HIV screening the US blood supply were those who considered HIV is a homosexual disease.
It is STIGMATISM and IGNORANCE that out public health at risk.
BTW, why don't you spare some of your venom for the Elderlies, since they have the HIGHEST INCREASE rate of HIV infection in Amerca. Preach at those Florida retirement home where 14% of the over-50s have AIDS. Go and tell them how much you hate them and that they're not natural, do not deserve equality and they should not contaminate the blood/organ supply. Just like you did to me.
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,991136,00.html)
Posted by: Dan | 10/02/2005
VP,
"Which DOES NOT mean all homosexuals are HIV infected."
You are correct. Homosexuals' disproportionate share of AIDS cases does not mean that "all homosexuals are HIV infected." It does mean that homosexuals have a shockingly disproportionate share of AIDS cases. It also implies that preventing homosexuals from donating blood, marrow, etc, is a substantially effective screen against the plague with minimal disruption of supply. (If ~2% of your suppliers cause 60% of all dangerous supplies, perhaps the rational approach is to focus on the 98% which account for only ~40% of dangerous supplies.)
"What do you say about the 25% of HIV-infected North American who are FEMALE."
Well, it means that a bit more than 50% of suppliers cause 25% of harm, which is much better than the 2%-60% seen for homosexuals.
"Or that almost ALL of these women got infected through HETEROSEXUAL intercourse?"
See above. A supplier population an order of magnitude greater than homosexuals account for less than half as many problems.
"Or the fact that >50% of AIDS cases in America between 1985-2002 affected African Americans."
Well, it might say that homosexualist advoacy poses a greatest risk to blacks.
Do you have numbers comparing exposure category to race? They would be interesting to see.
"64% of ALL HIV-infected people are Africans. So according to you no African should donate anything and African Blood banks/organ transplant/etc should ship in tissue supply from outer space then?"
I'm unsure if you mean continental Africans, sub saharan Africans, or American blacks. Regardless, bare in mind cost v. reward. Reducing the supply pool roughly 2% would cut risk by about half. That's a great pay-off.
"Should I remind you that the people who originally opposed to HIV screening the US blood supply were those who considered HIV is a homosexual disease."
I neither know nor care. The history of political debate on homosexuality and public health is only tangentially related to our discussion. An idea is good or bad regardless of its past proponents.
"It is STIGMATISM and IGNORANCE that out public health at risk"
Many things do.
"BTW, why don't you spare some of your venom"
Sorry to hear I am venomous! I enjoy learning more from you.
"for the Elderlies, since they have the HIGHEST INCREASE rate of HIV infection in Amerca"
You're confusing shift with magntidue. Rates of increase effect public health in the future more than now.
"Preach at those Florida retirement home where 14% of the over-50s have AIDS"
A plague is not good news, so it is hardly preaching!
"Go and tell them how much you hate them"
I never said I hate you. I do not hate you.
"and that they're not natural"
Living into a happy retirement is an expression of life. Allowing innocents to be infected because of an agenda isn't.
"do not deserve equality"
Calling for seniors to be treated equally would not earn you friends. They rather like their age-dependent social-security checks.
"and they should not contaminate the blood/organ supply"
No one should contaminate needed supplies.
Take care,
-Dan
***
(VP: I keep wondering why I spend time conversing with someone who quoted "defences of homophobia" on their blog.)
Posted by: Dan | 11/02/2005
Because you're interested in ideas and not prejudiced? :)
Posted by: Dan | 11/02/2005
The comments are closed.