Researchers Argue Homosexuals Should be Allowed to Give Blood

Researchers Argue Homosexuals Should be Allowed to Give Blood

TODAY'S HEADLINES | SEND NEWS TIPS | DONATE
SHARE: E-MAIL PRINT

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

OTTAWA, May 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two Canadian researchers have published an article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) saying that the federal ban on homosexual men donating blood is "outdated and discriminatory."

Mark Wainberg, director of the McGill University AIDS Centre at Montreal's Jewish General Hospital, and Dr. Norbert Gilmore argue in their article that it's time for the lifetime ban to be lifted. They say that the test to detect HIV in blood is much improved since the 1980s when the ban was first introduced, and that the ban was "hypocritical" because there are very few restrictions on heterosexual donors who may be sexually promiscuous.

"The science has advanced by hundreds of miles. Yet our policies are still in a time warp. Here we are 27 years later, still stuck with policies that are antiquated. And in our view these are policies that are not only discriminatory in regard to gay men but they are also policies that do not serve the Canadian blood system well because they result in far fewer blood donations," said Dr. Wainberg.

However, Ron Vezina, director of media relations at Canadian Blood Services, which tests all donated blood for HIV and other disease-causing organisms, said in media reports there would be no benefit to the blood supply by allowing homosexual men, still among the highest risk groups for HIV and other STD infections in Canada, to donate blood.

He added that many blood recipients don't want to see a change in policy that eliminates high risk groups from the pool of potential donors.

"As far as we're concerned, there's no evidence that's been introduced that suggests a change in policy wouldn't introduce incremental risk. We start off with the least risky donors and then we put them through the other processes for safety screening," Mr. Vezina said.

To Wainberg and Gilmore's argument that allowing homosexual men to donate would help alleviate blood shortages, Vezina said, "There hasn't been a blood shortage in Canada in recent history."

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10052612.html

The three major blood banking organizations in the US issued a joint statement back in 2006, criticizing the US FDA’s lifetime ban on gay men donating blood as "medically and scientifically unwarranted.”

Their proposal was to make it a one year ban, but the FDA declined, citing the need for more studies
msnbc.msn.com/id/18827137/

The FDA’s policy will be reviewed again in June of this year.
cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/25/gay.blood.donation.ban/index.html?eref=rss_latest

[quote="Soutane, post:1, topic:199725"]
However, Ron Vezina, director of media relations at Canadian Blood Services, which tests all donated blood for HIV and other disease-causing organisms, said in media reports there would be no benefit to the blood supply by allowing homosexual men, still among the highest risk groups for HIV and other STD infections in Canada, to donate blood.

He added that many blood recipients don't want to see a change in policy that eliminates high risk groups from the pool of potential donors.

"As far as we're concerned, there's no evidence that's been introduced that suggests a change in policy wouldn't introduce incremental risk. We start off with the least risky donors and then we put them through the other processes for safety screening," Mr. Vezina said.

To Wainberg and Gilmore's argument that allowing homosexual men to donate would help alleviate blood shortages, Vezina said, "There hasn't been a blood shortage in Canada in recent history."

[/quote]

And this is why I trust the people at Canadian Blood Services to manage the blood donations system. :thumbsup:

That reminds me, I need to make an appointment the next time I'm in the city.

I cannot give blood due to my medical history, not that I have anything proven wrong with my blood, but because the risk is there. I feel I am being discriminated against. Any lawyer want to make a federal case out of this (if I get a monetary award for damages I won’t turn it down).

On another note: this article's title is a total misnomer.

Like it or not, in today's world "homosexual" consistently refers to a person with predominant same-sex attractions. The word makes no assumption about one's actual sexual activity.

Thus there is no ban on homosexuals' giving blood. The current rule says a man can't give blood if he's ever had sexual contact with another man.

"A man who's had sexual contact with another man" is not tautologically equivalent to "a person who is homosexual." Another example of how they're different: the latter could be a woman, not a man.

I hate it when phrasing indicates discrimination where there is none.

You make an excellent point.Every time I give blood I’m never asked my sexual preference only if i’ve had sexual contact with another man.
However I only cut and pasted .I did not write the title:),

I believe the exact question is “Have you ever had sex with a man, even once time?”.

Not that anyone is making a fuss over the other 30 exclusionary questions. Like I’ve given blood 20 some times, so I can speak from experience. There’s a lot of questions (some of them have multiple parts too).

Nobody seems to be complaining about the question “Have you ever paid money or drugs for sex” or “Have you ever had sex with someone who’s paid money or drugs for sex” or “Have you ever had sex with someone who’s sexual background you don’t know” or “Did you live in the UK during the mad cow scare” (ok, that one had actual dates, but I can’t remember them and I’m pretty sure it’s the mad cow scare. I have a friend who’s excluded from giving blood based on this one) or “Were you born in or have you lived in Africa” or “Have you ever had malaria” or “Have you ever had an HIV test”. And that’s not even getting started on the questions.

They’re designed to keep the blood system safe for recipients. Because that’s who’s important here. Not the donors. The recipients.

To my amazement, the last time I went to give blood, one of the questions was whether I had sustained any kind of wound while vaccinating cattle within a year, or maybe a couple of years, I don’t remember which. Well YEAH! I defy anyone who vaccinates his own to claim, truthfully, that he has not been at least scratched by a needle. My blood was refused because (I guess) there are some cattle vector diseases that could harm an immunocompromised recipient.

So, we’re worried to the point of refusal about the mere possibility of, say, nonsymptomatic brucellosis, notwithstanding that there’s none around and I have NEVER heard of a human around here with it, but we’re going to risk HIV?

“Political correctness” really is a suicide pact. It really is.

Odd timing.
I'm having a surgery on Tuesday and today the hospital called w/ their 1001 questions; one of which was, "if you need a transfusion, is that acceptable to you?"
I said, "yes" but now I'm wondering....................

I was excluded from blood donation for awhile because I visited Prague during a possible Hep A outbreak . . . even though I’ve been vaccinated against Hep A. The rules discriminate against all kinds of people–for good reason! I seriously hope this proposal doesn’t gain any traction.

[quote="Ridgerunner, post:8, topic:199725"]

So, we're worried to the point of refusal about the mere possibility of, say, nonsymptomatic brucellosis, notwithstanding that there's none around and I have NEVER heard of a human around here with it, but we're going to risk HIV?

"Political correctness" really is a suicide pact. It really is.

[/quote]

I don't think that is quite right. The blood bank didn't give you a lifetime ban on donating blood because you had once vaccinated cattle. They gave you a temporary deferment.

I think the giving of a one year temporary deferment, since the date of the last male-male sex act, is entirely safe. While it is true that there is a short window of a few days to two weeks when HIV is undetectable with current tests, a one year deferment more than covers that gap.

[quote="catsrus, post:9, topic:199725"]
Odd timing.
I'm having a surgery on Tuesday and today the hospital called w/ their 1001 questions; one of which was, "if you need a transfusion, is that acceptable to you?"
I said, "yes" but now I'm wondering....................

[/quote]

There isn't any reason to be concerned regarding this news discussion. Nothing has changed, its simply being discussed, and changes won't occur for months (or years.) I am sorry you need surgery, and hope your recovery is swift and trouble-free.

"Political correctness" really is a suicide pact. It really is.

I do believe you've coined a new phrase or slogan that you should copywrite ASAP as it will soon be appearing on T shirts across North America.I'm NOT kidding.

A person bold enough to admit his or her homosexuality is engaging in behaviors that make it likely their blood is contaminated.

Unfortunately, one of the characteristics of homosexuality is the narcissism and addiction to attention that defines it. They do not care whether or not the lab people, nor the patient becomes infected, and suffers as a result.

All they care about is that their childish demands be fulfilled. Not through any sense of philanthropy, but, the thrill of being controversial.

o.0

Would you care to cite some evidence to support that claim?

Does personal observation count?

If you know the majority of gay men, and their attitudes towards blood donation, I suppose so.

[quote="Dale_M, post:14, topic:199725"]
o.0

Would you care to cite some evidence to support that claim?

[/quote]

Understanding How We Think
about Homosexuality
by Linda Nicolosi

Professor Steven Goldberg, Chairman of the Sociology Department at City College of New York, has some astute observations about why we think the way we do on some very emotionally charged subjects.

He is an outspoken critic of two untouchable bodies of research: Feminist Science and Gay and Lesbian Studies.

Goldberg's vigorous attack on these liberal "sacred cows" would tempt one to label him a conservative. However he is insistent that no scientist can serve an ideological master. Because many scientists and academics do exactly that, he says, "fallacious arguments dominate American universities and infuse our textbooks." Many professors know the assumptions of Gay Studies and Femininist Science are false, but they defend them as serving a humane purpose.

In his book When Wish Replaces Thought, he calls feminist science mere nonsense that provides "nothing more than endless, embarrassingly self-congratulatory discussion of terminology." He says, "One would be hard-put to find another group that talked so much about science without ever doing any science." The feminist scientist's approach, Goldberg claims, "replaces curiosity with narcissism" and "should long ago have been laughed out of the university."

"Logical analyses and empirical explanations," Goldberg reminds us, "are not conservative or liberal; they are relatively correct or incorrect. Arguments of both the right and left invariably attempt to smuggle in values hidden under empirical facts."

Goldberg has some penetrating observations about the nature of conservative and liberal arguments. The conservative, he says, usually acknowledges from the start the subjective assumptions he holds. (Conservatives on the subject of homosexuality often cite naturalistic or religious foundations for their belief that the condition is disordered.) These foundations render his argument incapable of persuading anyone that does not share his underlying assumptions. Goldberg sees the conservative as often motivated by a fear of his own emotions, which he projects onto a "barbarian mob threatening to break through the gates."

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to believe that the subjectively rooted argument is impotent. Therefore they are loathe to acknowledge the subjective assumptions of their own argument because they sense that--once these assumptions are exposed--no one will feel logically compelled to agree with their reasoning. Therefore the liberal attempts to camouflage his subjectivity.

The subjective motivation for the liberal's argument is often guilt

narth.com/docs/howthink.html

That sounds weird. Why would a gay person donate blood if their aim is narcissism and attention? How would people even know they’re gay? I have not found narcissism or abundant attention on my trips to the blood bank :confused:


Hi Soutane :wave:

[quote="Dale_M, post:16, topic:199725"]
If you know the majority of gay men, and their attitudes towards blood donation, I suppose so.

[/quote]

No,I don't,but how about this:

Gender Narcissism and its Manifestations
Gerald Schoenewolf, Ph.D.
The term narcissism was originally taken from the Greek myth about a beautiful young man who fell in love with his own reflection in a pool of water, jumped in after it, and drowned. The term was used to denote the attitude of a person who takes his own body as an object of attraction and desire, and centers on the practice of masturbation. Since then psychoanalysis has broadened the definition of narcissism to mean an excessive self-love or concern for the self and lack of concern for others.

The first, narrower definition of narcissism might now more aptly be termed gender narcissism. Gender narcissism develops in reaction to feelings of inferiority about one's gender and might be defined as excessive love or concern for one's gender, one's genitals, or one's gender identity, and an aversion to the opposite sex. It involves the formation of gender-narcissistic alliances rather than libidinal unions, and it is primarily rooted in the anal-rapprochement phase, during which time an individual's sexual orientation and identity are shaped.

In psychoanalyzing a number of individuals over the years who had gender-narcissistic features, I began to understand how gender narcissism is formed and manifested. Recently I decided to conduct a more systematic study. A search of my files found 30 patients who had been in treatment for at least six months and possessed three or more gender-narcissistic features. Their cases were reviewed and contrasted with another group of 20 randomly selected patients. Personality types ranged from hysterics and obsessive-compulsives to borderlines and schizophrenics, and sexual types included heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, transvestites, transsexuals, pedophiles, and fetishists, as well as women who engaged in strip-teasing and prostitution. The study found that gender narcissism is fairly common, with all personality types showing degrees of it; however, gender-narcissistic features were much more prevalent among homosexuals than among heterosexuals. When gender narcissism is present to a high degree, it has a disturbing effect on relationships, sexuality, and sexual identity. Mass gender narcissism adversely effects society

narth.com/docs/1996papers/schoenwolf.html

This one’s a little weird in that it quotes Freud but here goes:

HOMOSEXUALITY AND NARCISSISM
admin April 07, 2009 Men’s Health-Erectile Dysfunction No Comments
Another element germane to the homosexual picture is that of narcissism. Freud once commented that the homosexual is often so intensely narcissistic that he cannot love a being that is other than himself, that is, a being without a penis (in the case of the male). The narcissistic wish often expresses itself as the substitute for oedipal strivings, that is, once the homosexual has identified himself with his mother, he begins to behave as he had once wished his mother to behave toward him. This leads to a choice of libidinal objects such as men or boys who are quite similar to the individual himself and toward whom he then expresses the same sort of tenderness and affection that he had once desired from his mother. While he acts out the maternal identification in this way, emotionally the narcissism plays itself out insofar as the love object is like himself and the psychic situation is equivalent to one in which he is able to enjoy being loved by himself. This particular dynamic may prevail when male religious are in charge of young boys, or females in charge of young girls. This is particularly noteworthy for young adolescents in whom the resolution of gender identity has not been completed and the titre of homosexual impulses runs high.

healthsibu.com/2009/04/homosexuality-and-narcissism/

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.