12 Comments on “(ww65) Our Blood Bank, the vitality of us”

1. #1 tp
   on Nov 9th, 2007 at 4:28 am

   Welcome back, Brad. My response to the nurse in the blood bank would be ‘have *you* had sex with a male since 1977.’ I’ve never given blood - always brushed off the brush-off, but now you’ve got my blood boiling… gah! Thanks for waking me up again.

2. #2 Joshua-Myles
   on Nov 10th, 2007 at 8:37 pm

   My boyfriend and I had this similar experience when we both tried to donate blood at the hospital that he works at. I ended up lying on purpose to see what would happen, and he was truthful. Even though we both came in together, and were obviously a couple, he was rejected and I was accepted to donate. Maybe my blood helped someone, but I had to deny a part of who I was to achieve satisfaction. Great Vlog, Brad. Thank you.

3. #3 J.R.
   on Nov 10th, 2007 at 10:42 pm

   Another thought provoking post Brad, thank you

   I’ve got some comments that are not meant to hurt, just to get people to think. Why is it so important to be able to give blood? Are we wanting to do it to make ourselves feel better, to be able to “join in”, or to help our fellow humans?

   I think it is selfish and naive to think that the blood supply pool from men who engage in sex with other men is not highly likely to put others at risk. Also, keep in mind there are a host of reasons that straight people are prohibited from giving blood. For example, even though up until several years ago I had never engaged in sex with another male, I was unable to give blood simply because I lived in the UK during the early 90s. The reason, there was the chance that I carried mad cow disease. It wouldn’t have mattered if I was a vegetarian the whole time I was there, I was excluded from giving blood simply because of where I lived.

   At first this bothered me, especially because it is so easy for me to give blood. My body is just easy to draw blood from. Then I realized how incredibly selfish it was for me to want to force someone to take my blood when it could put others at risk. How would that be helping my fellow humans? I might feel better because I “helped”, or because that I fit into some charitable “club”. But I wouldn’t be helping, in reality there was the very real possibility that I would be harming.

   Until there are cost effective and fail-safe methods for screening blood from mad cow disease, sexually transmitted diseases, or whatever other blood borne pathogen, we need to look beyond the discrimination and realize it is not about us. It is about others desperately in need of a clean blood supply. If we truly care about those in need we will find other ways to help. And there are other ways.

4. #4 Rob.L
   on Nov 11th, 2007 at 4:07 pm

   I used to donate blood as regularly as I was permitted (every 16 weeks). I was very passionate about it. I produced a campaign to promote it. Every donor is another option.

   In England, that health-check question simply asks if you’ve ever had sexual relations with another man, regardless of whether it was protected or unprotected.

   If a woman has ever had sexual relations with a man who has ever had sexual relations with another man, protected or unprotected, she will be told she cannot donate blood. There’s a neat quiz on the National Blood Service website (www.blood.co.uk) to help you decide if you’re eligible. It’s all very concise and streamlined. To be so streamlined, they need to automatically say “No” to anything which has a risk, however bigoted it might be.

   I have only had one partner, and I haven’t been sexually active since 2000.

   I did lie on that question. I felt OK doing that because I was and am clean. I shouldn’t have to lie, and I do not enjoy lying of any kind, but I found it a necessary evil to overcome bureaucracy. I didn’t feel I had betrayed my identity because I was doing something I felt passionately for.

   I put a pause on donating blood. I have the pathetic excuse that I can’t make the time; a mentality I have fought to change in the past. I last donated August 2006.

5. #5 VJ
   on Nov 12th, 2007 at 12:13 am

   Wow. We still have a long way to go.

6. #6 Kiko
   on Nov 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pm

   Although, sad that it appears discriminatory on the surface, the blood donation issue really isn’t. They are just trying to keep the supply of blood clean as other commenters have stated.

   I believe that the screening process was actually a response to the influx of contaminated blood from drug users back in the 60’s. In that era, it was not uncommon for people to get paid for giving blood. Since most junkies didn’t have jobs back then, this was an easy way for them to get some quick cash for their next fix. The screening process we see today just evolved from that problem.

   If you really want to donate, there are ways around this as other commenters have stated.

   Also, my doctor, who is fully aware of my sexual, social and medial situation, often has blood drives at his office to help the blood supply at the hospital he is affiliated with. None of my blood has been “rejected” through this practice.

   If the Red Cross doesn’t want my blood, fine. My local hospital does and at least it’s helping those within my community.

7. #7 Kenny
   on Nov 16th, 2007 at 12:41 am

   Brad!
   Hello Hello,

   So here’s my two cents regarding some above comments.

   1. Sexual preference (who you prefer to have sex with) doesn’t indicate risk.

   2. Are gay men really that much more likely to be diseased than other groups (Last I checked, African American females 25-35 have the highest HIV infection rates)?

   3. Accurate methods of STI testing are available and are used. It can be argued that the general US method is less accurate, but both popular techniques are very good.

   4. No human has ever died of mad cow disease (look into it). I’m willing to argue that no human has been officially infected with the virus either.

   5. The issue is not for gay men to join the “self-righteous blood donors club”, but to be treated equally. The continuation of discrimination, regardless of one’s personal level of concern for the specific issue, encourages discrimination on all levels.

   6. People shouldn’t have to lie.

   7. Average people shouldn’t have better judgment than experts in the field (although it seems obvious that in this case they do).

   My College holds frequent blood drives. I take to opportunity to lecture fellow students and about gay rights.

   More to come! I have lots of new thoughts, Brad! Did you get my e-mail (not sure if you check that address much anymore)?

   Nice to hear from everyone,
   Kenny

8. #8 Kenny
   on Nov 16th, 2007 at 12:43 am

   Oh, and good work on the film. I saw it on Logo (you’re featured in a few commercials too).

   

9. #9 Ramble Redhead
   on Nov 26th, 2007 at 10:07 am

   This topic has been on my mind for a long time and it is true that it is sad that gay men have to face this when trying to donate blood. No one should have to lie to be able to do something that will help save a life when it is needed. If all of the blood is tested then what is the difference who donates?

   I would like to add that it is the same with organ donation as well - people need to understand that thousands of lives could be saved if we all took the time to tell people this is our wish.

   My best friend of 30+ years is still here with me today because someone took the time and sadly they were in a car accident and died and this person’s kidney helped my friend to be with his wife and kids.

   I think we all take our lives for granted and don’t stop to think about things like this until it is too late.

   The GLBTQ community has to stop being treated like second class citizens and do something about this and we need to get our straight allies as well.

10. #10 Brad
    on Dec 26th, 2007 at 3:37 pm

    I found this podcast, and I beleive it truly shows how far from democracy we really are. Nevertheless, I hope you will post more often. It is an inspriration for those of us to struggle in the surving the not so open world.

11. #11 Hans
    on Dec 31st, 2007 at 12:47 am

    Well, I am positive and have been for quite some time, so I don’t even go there, but…. the whole scenario sounds hamfisted and tactless at best and then regrettably backward and prejudiced at worst. Obviously, there are two sides to every issue, and I try to employ the Golden Rule wherever I can (when I can remember!) : to turn things around and see what people mgiht be thinking or WHY they might engage in whatever. Generally, people do this stuff more out of lack of concern or just simple ignorance, as opposed to any specific malicious intention, and that is significant in that we want to recognize and respect others as humans too, and take the higher road rather than jumping into the ditch with them.

    obcviously, the sanctity and safety of the blood supply must be ensured, and that perhaps is more important overall than a few people having hurt feelings, yet undoubtedly there is and can be, a more rational, sane and practical way, and this discussion will no doubt lead to that.

    I would suspect that there are considerable costs in terms of both time and effort in testing each sample thoroughly, and while uncertain of the process or costs, I would imagine that when the cost and efficiency are reasonable then this will cease to really be any issue. Granted that it seems “odd” that it would be NOW, as one would certainly HOPE that all blood is tested every time!

    I just read with some surprise that in Japan, numerous peopel were infected with hepatitis C due to a failure to be attentive to their blood supply.. a fact which resonates with me, as my father died of complicartions of hepatitis C apparently picked up from tainted blood given in an overseas hospital.

    It seems annoying and perplexing, yes… some letters and phone calls will no doubt help to alter this policy (if in fact it WAS a “policy”. the employes may have been misinformed or going against official policy as well)

    if anything, I’ve learned not to react too quickly before getting full information and giving a thing careful consideration

12. #12 Hans
    on Jan 2nd, 2008 at 11:07 pm

    I think the incident was unfortunate. More than likely the person was following rote procedure and I doubt she MEANT to hurt, but here is an opportunity for enlightenment and education. Although it can seem burdensome (especially since it seems we have to do this all the damn time, lol) I think it’s helpful and usefulo to utilize the Golden Rule.

    Now I would imagine (and HOPE!!!) that “they” DO in fact test all of the blood, so I don’t think that it ought to be an issue, but I don’t KNOW, so maybe I will talk to some people and find out what the industry standard IS. In any event I know the womans actions may have been callous and somewhat ignorant, but I’m sure SHE just thought she wwas doing her job. My point being that I think that it behooves us to employ some restraint and tolerance and avoid hysteria, else our ultimate goal is lost. The other wonderful tool is laughter. Turn it around. Anyway.. I’m just throwing stuff out there…. be nice to one another….

Leave a Comment