...but not if you're a gay or bisexual male k thx.
I support Canadian Blood Services. I am a regular blood donor (well, whenever I'm not deferred due to low iron - often works out to about two donations a year), for a couple of reasons: my grand-dad died in 1998 due to aplastic anemia, and blood transfusions extended his life, not to mention his quality of life, by about three years beyond what he would otherwise have had. Another reason: I was raised in a religion of people (Jehovah's Witnesses) who allow their children to die rather than receive a blood transfusion, and then put their faces on magazine covers as martyrs for their faith. I left the religion when I was 18 due to fundamental differences* in belief; donating blood is another way to take an active stance against their practices.
However, here's where I have to diverge from Canadian Blood Services. From
their website:
Why do you not allow gay men the right to donate blood?
Canadian Blood Services’ policy indefinitely defers any man who has sex with another man, even once, since 1977. The policy in question does not apply specifically to gay men. This is one of numerous screening procedures which allow us to identify a variety of behaviours and activities known to increase risk to the safety of the blood supply.
The basic premise for our policy pertaining to men who have had sex with men is that the prevalence and incidence of HIV is much higher in males who have had sex with other males than it is in individuals having exclusively heterosexual sex. Statistics released by the Public Health Agency of Canada in 2005 indicate that men who have sex with men represented 58 per cent of the HIV/AIDS cases in Canada. This number is up from 2002, when they represented 40 per cent; and in 1996, when they represented 30 per cent of new cases of HIV/AIDS in Canada.
While we do test all units of blood and testing is sophisticated, there still exists a brief period after the onset of a viral infection during which early signs of a virus cannot be detected. This period of time is known as the "window period". However, the system is as safe as current testing and technology allows, combined with Canadian Blood Services' stringent screening processes (e.g., donor questionnaire, deferral policies).
We continually review our policies and procedures in the face of changing science and technology and as such we are conducting a risk assessment of this issue. Any change in donor criteria would have to be considered safe from a scientific perspective and be approved by our regulator, Health Canada.
I call bullshit.
Now, hey: I'm not going to argue with Health Canada's stats. Dammit, Jim, I'm an insurance broker, not a statistician! I'll assume that the percentages accurately reflect the landscape of HIV/AIDS in the years quoted. But since we know that studies and statistics can be manipulated to say anything the author wants them to say, I have to take issue with how CBS seems to represent the progression in these figures:
Statistics released by the Public Health Agency of Canada in 2005 indicate that men who have sex with men represented 58 per cent of the HIV/AIDS cases in Canada. This number is up from 2002, when they represented 40 per cent;
Ooooh, scary; unfortunately, it doesn't mean a damn thing! This doesn't say new cases. I would suggest that gay and bisexual men at least as likely as heterosexuals (if not more so) to get tested on a regular basis and be more proactive of their status; and therefore, if they receive a positive diagnosis, would seek treatment sooner and have a better overall prognosis (and the ones who aren't responsible about their own health probably aren't thinking about saving the lives of others by donating blood). Could we not theorize, then, that that more of the heterosexual individuals and lesbians who had HIV/AIDS in 2002, had passed away before 2005, decreasing the overall number of cases and thereby artificially inflating the percentage of gay and bisexual male carriers?
Also, the statement which immediately follows the above point:
and in 1996, when they represented 30 per cent of new cases of HIV/AIDS in Canada.
Ah,
now we see the word "new", which was lacking in the previous statement. So the progression of percentages - 30% in 1996, 40% in 2002, and 58% in 2005 - means absolutely dick (pun intended), since comparing percentages
is only effective when the percentages refer to the same damn thing. If we divided sexually active adults into only three categories - individuals who only have hetero sex with others who only have hetero sex, lesbian women, and men whose sexual partners include men - the 30% is actually below an even third of those. So who's taking more than their "share" of the percentage here? And could we perhaps see some figures on new cases, that aren't eleven years old?
Of course, this entire discourse operates on the conjecture that all gay and bi men are promiscuous; and that all heterosexuals are, by contrast, chaste and virtuous. I could list any number of hypothetical situations involving monogamous and responsibly non-monogamous gay and bi male partners; and just as many examples of reckless promiscuity by people in, well, every other group. By accepting heterosexual and lesbian donors, but deferring gay and bi men, Canadian Blood Services continues to perpetuate these stereotypes.
How much longer will we ignore this sanctioned discrimination against gay/bi men? What steps are we willing to take to protest it? What would be an effective form of protest?
I welcome your comments and suggestions.
* A subject for another post
