University College Cork LGBT Group Protests Gay Blood Ban

Hunter S

University College Cork LGBT Group Protests Gay Blood Ban



On the 6th of December, the Irish Blood Transfusion Service will come to UCC for its annual blood drive. At this time, LGBT students and the Students Union, using recently outed and former poster boy of the IBTS, Westlife member Mark Feehily as their own poster boy, will begin an awareness campaign to draw attention to their outdated and discriminatory policy of refusing blood from gay men. The campaign is a peaceful one and does not want to interfere with the very important business of the IBTS. In fact, it is precisely because of the importance of blood donation that the campaign hopes to change IBTS policy.

The lifetime ban on donation from gay men stems from an emergency policy at the height of the AIDS panic around 1985 when the FDA in America imposed a blanket ban on gay men giving blood. At the time, procedures for screening HIV looked for antibodies for the virus, which could take weeks of months to develop. Policymakers had worried
that during this window, HIV-tainted blood could go through the screening process undetected. Today, there are superior testing procedures so that the window from infection to detection has been cut to 10 days. This means that if blood is donated 10 days after a possibility of infection, there is no reason to refuse the blood. According to the IBTS, they "test every donation received for a number of diseases", including Hep B, HIV and Hep C. Based on this, there is
no reason for a blanket ban on 'men who have ever had sex with men'.

The IBTS tries to excuse their discriminatory policy by pointing out that because a HIV emergency originated from the gay community in the 80s, it is possible that a new, unforeseen disease may emerge in the future by the same route. This argument is clearly flawed: a new disease may emerge from any source, whether or not it has in the past. It is this attitude which is homophobic. The IBTS excludes someone based on their sexuality and because eventually they may be prone to some new, unknown virus. This is highly controversial and not a justifiable discrimination.

"Monogamous gay couples in long-term stable relationships, who are tested regularly and have a history of safe sex are barred from donating blood forever, by stark contrast, and revealing the contradictory values of the IBTS, the same policy allows a single heterosexual to have many partners and who doesn't practise safe sex to donate blood" This awareness campaign is asking the IBTS to re-examine their policy and allow healthy and safe people to donate.


The fact is there is no appropriate reason to refuse the blood of gay men on such blanket terms. LGBT Auditor Diarmuid Angland says "Double standards are at play and the reasons the IBTS gives for this are not in touch with modern day studies". And considering the current blood supply crisis, there can be no justification for needlessly turning away blood like this. The Swedish Prime Minister is now the first world leader to call for a review of the blood ban and we applaud this progressive call to keep in step with the times. Let us not forget that any man need only have had sex with another man once in his whole life for this ban to be effective. So what we are calling for in our campaign is a review of IBTS policy. A cautious measure we would like to suggest is to impose a ban on anyone giving blood a year after engaging in risky behaviour. UCC LGBT have produced a document in relation to this matter which is entitled "Give Blood becasue we Cant", which is also the name of the campaign, if you would like to learn more about this matter they can be conated on ucclgbt@gmail.com

Gay blood is safe blood and gay people are healthy people. This must be recognised. Lives are in the balance.






Diarmuid Angland <diarmuid.a@gmail.com>
Sonya Donnelly < sonya.donnelly@gmail.com>

Hmm_Messiah

Must say, very well presented argument (not that its that complicated an issue, simple baseless discrimination)

Stark

Good luck with it. I love the poster.

Hunter S

Thanks guys, it went real well

Boston

Who actually obeys this ban btw? I've a very fuk them attitude on the issue. But if you know you're clean or at least as clean as the next guys, why obey the ban?

damien

It is all a question of honour and honesty isn't it? Two things ironically lacking in the IBTS.

Hmm_Messiah

I gave blood every time they were in the area, got little silver pin etc, even thought of dropping in when in Dublin to give the max allowed per yr.

Then I did as instructed when I got my piercings, and stopped for what ever time they stated, in the mean time this crazy list came in the post prohibiting donation on the most prejudicial grounds.

I still get the requests but don't donate, not sure why. I know with certainty their criteria is crap, and again with certainty that my health/lifestyle meets any "appropriate" criteria. I guess it is the honour & honesty bit.

Maybe, being honest, initially I allowed myself the same overblown fears that brought in the "ban" in first place.

Boston

damien.m wrote:

It is all a question of honour and honesty isn't it? Two things ironically lacking in the IBTS.

Wheres the honor in people dying (should we believe the propaganda) because there is a shortage of blood. So I guess honesty is where I come in, and why should I have to hide who i am in order to help people.

Hmm_Messiah

LiouVille wrote:

So I guess honesty is where I come in, and why should I have to hide who i am in order to help people.

You have to sign a declaration after ticking off a questionnaire, so if you wanted to donate (depending on your own sexual history) you would have to lie , equates to hiding who you are.

Hmm_Messiah

wasn't the "attack" on you as a poster, not a mod?

so to be fair shouldn't it be another mod deciding whether its appropriate to ban damien?

Perhaps your decision in one regard explains your actions in the other.


I understand some one wanting to donate and determining that they were "healthy", but its reckless. I'd consider myself 100% healthy in that regard but when u consider the minutia of requirements, and possibilities I'd not take the risk. Not because i feel exposed to risks as "gay" but sadly exposed somewhat in the reality of this world and my .choices in it.

Swimmy

Stark is scum...hmmm Well personally I have never given blood and don't intend to do so. Yes I maybe selfish but rules are rule and I would feel guilty if someone died becuase of a risk or becuase I had a disease. How could one carry that guilt?

Swimmy

Well as far as I can see this is perfect ammo for the homophobes on why the ban should stay. 'The gays cannot be trusted.'

As far as I can see lying on a state form is a crime and is not an example of how gay people should be seen to behave. As far as I can see your actions are inexcusable and should not be condoned!:mad:

Hmm_Messiah

Stark wrote:

....And Jesus was practically walking the earth the last time I saw action between the sheets. .....

Erm, I was explaining why I didn't donate rather than commenting on why you did.

"between the sheets" is an unfortunate choice of words: not doubting your knowledge of where risks lie re infected blood, but for others their only understanding of it is what happens between the sheets , and between two men between those sheets .

being agreed on the need for change in regulations, the only point then is how is that achieved

Zillah

I've seen some of the most moronic criticisms ever on this thread.

So let me get this straight.

Stark got flamed for giving blood.
Like any other human being.
Except for the fact that he's queer.


Not to mention the fact that he's had STI checks and what not. What percentage of the straight people that give blood have done that with any frequency? The onus of safety is not on the donor. No human can be sure they are not infected with something, thats why the blood is screened. All a perosn can do is act responsibly, and if you genuinely belive that being queer makes your blood a liability then you can kiss my ass.

Maybe I'm missing something here, I hope Im missing something here, but if this is all because of some archaic policy from the 80s then you people are stupid.

Fùcking sheep.

Hunter S

Hey guys i see the topic has wandered very far from where it was once intended, it saddens me that most of the talk on the posting boards has not been in realation to the actual campaign.

I know both Stark and Damien well so i have no agenda here... So

I realise that your donation of blood was well intended Stark but as flawed as the policies of the IBTS are i belive that the law should not be broken in relation to them.

Lying on the form, can have such catastrophic results, as laid out above, that i would not like to even think what would happen if the IBTS were even to see this thread. As a campaigner for equal rights in this area i know that in depth research needs to be carried out on the time limit needed to make sure that only clean blood goes into the system.

Im sure you left it a significant ammount of time after having sex before donating blood but in truth you, nor I know exactly how much time is enough time. As i said in my first post that it should be between 5 - 10 days but i personally call for a year ban on anyone engageing in risky sexual behavior, i dont know did you leave it that long Stark.

Above someone said that gay sex isnt risky sexual behavior, in truth yes it is, men who have sex with men ARE at the highest risk of contracting HIV/AIDs in Ireland (not includeing women from sub saharan africa) and anal sex IS a risky sexual activity, whether for heterosexual or homosexual persons.

Ok im goning to finish this here casue i dont wanna get involved in any personal wars, which i think we all know is what this is, in truth Stark, Damien should not have called you scum as im sure you had nothing but good intentions as ill reasoned as your donation was, but this is a very passioned issue and im sure Damien just got carried away when he read what you had done, i think the month ban on damien should be lifted and an admin should make a decision in this case as you are too close to the topic at hand to make an impartial judgement.


To finish i call on any gay man not to donate blood if he has had sex with another man, do not lie on the IBTS form, please by doing so you put yourself in legal danger and the lives of others in jeapordy, put your energies into campaigning for equal rights in this area, and create a time when you wont have to lie about your sex life on a form.

I belive the tide is changing in this arena and that equal rights are not too far off.

Sonya

Stark

Thanks Sonya. I agree with the posters here that what I did was totally misguided and I hadn't thought of the consequences for the campaign. I'm sorry now for that. I haven't actually donated in over a year as I had anal sex with a guy earlier this year and I considered lying about that a lot more serious that lying about receving a blowjob. I won't go near a blood clinic again until the IBTS change their policies.

As for the ban on damien, yes I know I am too close to be impartial, but I had already contacted the supermods of this forum straight after pressing the ban button and they agree with my decision and consider the month ban to be reasonable. If I was called scum by anyone other than a regular contributor to the forum then I would have given a permanent ban.

Swimmy

Well I don't know either Damien or Stark really well however I feel a months ban to far too harsh and represents an abuse of power to be honest. Yes a personal attack was maybe a bit uncalled for, however a statement which supported the illegal donation of blood was made and I as one cannot condone it. The law is the law.

I do not mind other people breaking silly laws once they do not put the lives of others at risk, however in this case the lives of everyone is potentially put at risk. This is not a personal attack on Stark, mearly a statement of fact regarding the current situation.

I think Damiens account should be reinstated and this matter should be closed. People are entitled to their opinions and I think that Stark needs to not take every personal comment to heart and show a bit of restraint. Act like an adult for Gods sake!

astec123

At least you realise that this is a problem, no one is judging you stark but we all want to break barriers not make them, I said it before and will say it again this is the reason "gays" have been isolated, people dont trust what they dont understand, giving them a reason to not trust a gay bi les person even more is just wood to the fire.

I dislike how you make your point, it sounds like you're looking for reasons to say what he did was wrong.
-ok so then murdering someone is illegal and against the rules, but in my honest opinion it isnt so therefore I can go out and kill someone tomorrow. Same logic! What he did is wrong even with the best intentions at heart it is still wrong, if the BTS decide to allow gay people to give blood they may impose a second extra screening, this is something that may happen. If stark gives blood Im sure he would not care of another screening but be serious and think about the consequences. I accept totally he wants to help as most humans do, it is our nature.

What is right is to campaign for equal rights that is the apt thing to do, that helps the many as much as anything else. Ireland has allways to me seemed like a stage for change, things there happen and the world takes the example, eg smoking ban etc. Keep at it, the world needs people to stand up and fight for these things but keep everything above board.

Anyway for those who decided to needlessly start harassing stark again that was stupid, its a discussion not a mob tactic that will win at the end of the day.

A

Hunter S

Sonya. If in the future you wish to organise country wide campaigns on issues like this, you have my number, and I'll put it to trinity lgbt.

Hey Joe i emailed every single uni that i could find an email address for with all the information ive collected which ive turned into a document called "Give Blood becasue we cant", unfortunately Trinity dont seem to see eye to eye with us on the method of marketing used (the poster) but i hope they and other universitys will start their own campaigns again, as i really think we have a chance to get somewhere with this issue.

Hmm_Messiah

Stark wrote:

Thanks Sonya. I agree with the posters here .....

wow! frank and honest, i'm impressed , seriously.

so back to topic.

anything else that can be done to move this forward?

Hunter S

You could pm me with your email address and ill send you on information, then you could start your own campaigm. Even just writing to the IBTS or local TD, and the making your letter public so it can be a framework for others to work from

swiss

For those of you wondering where a bunch of posts went, they have been moved to the Thunderdome.

I think at this stage it is more appropriate to concentrate on the wider issue of IBTS policy and this campaign as opposed to individual posters.

MicraBoy

Stark's last post has got me wondering.

I haven't actually donated in over a year as I had anal sex with a guy earlier this year and I considered lying about that a lot more serious that lying about receving a blowjob.

I take it the IBTS make no distinction on the type of sex involved?

On a side note I see Damien's offending post has been removed. I think this is a pity. Most of the post was a very compelling argument about not donating blood under the current rules. Perhaps a less offensive version (i.e. edited) would be more suitable compromise?

moridin

I wouldn't advise editing his post. You don't know him at all, clearly...

Oh, and for the record I don't think those posts warrented being moved to Thunderdome.

Hmm_Messiah

the way posts have been moved suggests its ok for zillah to call people stupid and f*cking sheep.

It is strange that www.ibts.ie doesn't provide a pdf of the form you fill in before donating. it does say all blood is fully tested for HIV, Hep B etc, and if detected your details are forwarded to the Public Health Authorities.

I don't thing in the circumstances writing to a TD is very effectual. When some thing is "institutionalised" its best to try present your campaign to the highest authority. Hasn't McDowell made "gay friendly" overtones at the film festival etc. As Justice minister, and an undeniably informed intelligent guy, how would he defend the ibts stance? Mary Harney too, despite the many things said about her, shows a real determination to make change, and it would be broadly within her remit (I know its independent but it is an instrument of the Health services)

In ways the discrimination here is more significant, or at least more easily persuaded to the general public. Marital rights etc effects only individuals involved, this discrimination also contributes to a lack of blood supply and what ever effects that has on patient health.

Though considering everything, in the end of the day, one voice will win the cause, more because of who the voice is than the rights or wrongs.

Possbly too that for example, locally the Kilkenny VEC would refuse permission for the mobile units while the policy discriminates.

Its unfortunate Mark ________ from Westlife went thro with that photo shoot. I'm not saying he has this responsibility, but if he'd commented on it the "news worthiness" would multiply.

I was quite impressed with the Irish Times last week, it gave over a number of pages to the Vatican document on gay men & priesthood.

And finally, as mentioned in other threads, if gay people highlighted these causes when politicans look for their vote, change would happen; because politicans need your vote, and no one in pulic life wants to be seen as prejudiced or discriminatory in this increasing diverse society.

MicraBoy

I wouldn't advise editing his post. You don't know him at all, clearly...

Your right I don't. I had a fair idea he wouldn't be impressed. I just hoped he would have forgiven me (or forgotten me) by the time his ban was up.

Btw I can't see the deleted posts in Thunderdome which is prob where I should be posting this....

Stark

MicraBoy wrote:

I take it the IBTS make no distinction on the type of sex involved?

Nope, they say anal or oral sex.

Nevyn

But women who say on thier form that they have had anal sex are not refused
from donating blood.

Yes the system sucks but that is not reason to lie on your form.

They need to change thier policies, lying or lying true omission and donating blood only reinforces thier polices.

Hmm_Messiah

theadadyal

we've moved on from there with general agreement

Boston

Hunter S wrote:

Hey Joe i emailed every single uni that i could find an email address for with all the information ive collected which ive turned into a document called "Give Blood becasue we cant", unfortunately Trinity dont seem to see eye to eye with us on the method of marketing used (the poster) but i hope they and other universitys will start their own campaigns again, as i really think we have a chance to get somewhere with this issue.

Sounds to me like someone was making a unilaterial decision, probably not even on the comittee anymore. send the information if you could to lgbisoc@csc.tcd.ie I can't promise anything except that it will get a fair discussion.

Boston

Thaedydal wrote:

But women who say on thier form that they have had anal sex are not refused
from donating blood.

Yes the system sucks but that is not reason to lie on your form.

They need to change thier policies, lying or lying true omission and donating blood only reinforces thier polices.

Because with homosexuals you know to a degree what type of sexual activities they get up to. To make a valid assertion that a number ( aka not insignificant bunch of oddities) of women have Anal sex, you would have to carry out some sort of sex survey ala Kinsey. Reading the "Ireland on sunday" reacently while bored, I'd have to say middle Ireland is nowhere ready for that sort of thing.

Where as, it is generally excepted that Gay men have sex with strangers in public toliets.

Pet

You have to understand that the IBTS, after the Hepatitis scandals, is one of the most paranoid in the world. So trusted are their rigorous screening procedures that they ship blood to other fussy countries.

And yes it seems a little unfair and discriminatory to exclude gay men, but the fact is gay men in Ireland are more likely to be infected with HIV, the statistics speak for themselves. The IBTS aren't trying to be bastards, or conservative or old-fashioned, they're just covering their own asses.

(No joke intended.)

Hmm_Messiah

Pet wrote:

You have to understand ........
And yes it seems a little unfair and discriminatory to exclude gay men, but the fact is gay men in Ireland are more likely to be infected with HIV, the statistics speak for themselves. The IBTS aren't trying to be bastards, or conservative or old-fashioned, they're just covering their own asses.

Understanding some ones behaviour does not mean you have to tolerate it.

Nor is it a little unfair...... its blatantly, unnecessarily discriminatory, pointlessly so as the blood is tested for virii/antibodies. That its against gay men, for the reason you've given is not conservative, its reactionary, ignorant and bigoted.

Stark

It should be behaviour specific and not orientation specific.

There are comments on their website where they say that they expect any new "insidious" infections to come from the homosexual community again. In my opinion, AIDS struck the homosexual community hardest because at the time, there was little in the way of sex education for homosexuals. These days, homosexuality is legal, so gay health groups can get government funding, and education has moved on a whole lot. A new uncombatted infection is far more likely to come from a different source. With people immigrating from impoverished areas with poor sexual health education and wider exposure to foreign infections, the homosexual community isn't the one to be focusing on as the carriers of new infections.

I think a waiting period for men and women who engage in anal sex and a waiting period for men and women who have sex with an unknown partner would be more appropriate than a blanket ban on gay men giving blood. Outside of the waiting period, testing procedures would signifigantly reduce the risk of an infection being passed on. There'll always be a slight risk, but it would be the same risk that exists for heterosexuals giving blood.

Boston

Pet wrote:

You have to understand that the IBTS, after the Hepatitis scandals, is one of the most paranoid in the world. So trusted are their rigorous screening procedures that they ship blood to other fussy countries.

And yes it seems a little unfair and discriminatory to exclude gay men, but the fact is gay men in Ireland are more likely to be infected with HIV, the statistics speak for themselves. The IBTS aren't trying to be bastards, or conservative or old-fashioned, they're just covering their own asses.

(No joke intended.)

What do you say to the apparent contrast between a man who sleeps with a gay man, and a woman who sleeps with a gay man. One is banned for life while the other is banned for a period of 6 months (might be a year i really can't remember exactly). I don't have to be an expert in the field to realise something isn't right there.