Blood Donors?

Today I heard a report on TV that the Government is now wanting to refuse accepting blood from Homosexuals/Gays/Katooey's. Did anyone else hear this report and if so is it true?
Not every gay person is HIV or sleeps around!

[Diec]

The Red Cross has not accepted blood donations from gays for years. You can't even be an organ donater. Sp?

The Red Cross has not accepted blood donations from gays for years. You can't even be an organ donater. Sp?


Hi,

Excuse my ignorance on statistics but I thought there were more heterosexuals in the World with the virus than Gays?

Certainly it m8ust be on the African Continent anyway with the largest concentration of this disease.

A few months back there was a blood drive in the school boyfriend is going to. The students were all told they would get "extra credit" if they donated blood. Boyfriend joined the queue along with everyone else. He didn't know and was never told there was any problem with his giving blood.

I guess the administration was more interested in looking good with a 100% turnout than in turning away gays and ladyboys.

A few months back there was a blood drive in the school boyfriend is going to. The students were all told they would get "extra credit" if they donated blood. Boyfriend joined the queue along with everyone else. He didn't know and was never told there was any problem with his giving blood.

I guess the administration was more interested in looking good with a 100% turnout than in turning away gays and ladyboys.


Hi Kenc,

I don't get it really, I thought all blood was screened, it must be, not only for HIV but for other diseases.

It sounds too simple to me, but why don't they just accept all, screen it, throw away the no good samples and inform the donor they would not be required to give again.

Must be more to it that I am unaware of, unless its the cost?

[Geezer]

тАЬIt sounds too simple to me, but why don't they just accept all, screen it, throw away the no good samples and inform the donor they would not be required to give again.тАЭ

As I understand it there is a three month period after HIV is contracted when it is undetectable by a blood test. Any blood given during that time could be unsafe. Nevertheless, in the US (and I hope in Thailand) all donated blood is tested anyway.

I am taken aback that so many gay farangs are surprised at this precaution. It has been in place in the US, and surely in many other countries, for many years. Any gay who has attempted to donate blood is aware of this common restriction.

....I don't get it really, I thought all blood was screened, it must be, not only for HIV but for other diseases.

It sounds too simple to me, but why don't they just accept all, screen it, throw away the no good samples and inform the donor they would not be required to give again.

Must be more to it that I am unaware of, unless its the cost?

The policy is a holdover from the early days of the AIDS crisis when there was no adequate screening process and many people became infected from blood transfusions. But yes, now there are adequate screening processes. The "cost factor" is just a convienient excuse.
The only thing I can think is that there are a lot of ignorant people who still think they'll get AIDS if they get "Gay Blood".

Kind of like the silly people who not too long ago thought they would be "polluted" if they got a blood transfusion from a Black or Chinese person. I don't know if that was ever a problem in the UK but it sure was here in the US.

There is a debate going on right now in the US about dropping this stupid policy.

[Smiles]

тАЬ... I am taken aback that so many gay farangs are surprised at this precaution. It has been in place in the US, and surely in many other countries, for many years. This lack of awareness doesnтАЩt reflect well on the sense of civic responsibility of the gay community, as any gay who has attempted to donate blood would have known of this common restriction ... "
Same same in Canada.
Protecting the national blood supply trumps hurt feelings ... and rightly so.

Cheers ...

[allieb]

Fattman (from today's Bangkok post)

Blood donors are asked if they are homosexuals and female donors will also be asked if they have had sex with men from countries that have high incidence of Aids cases.

I take it that Thailand is a country that has a high incidence of AIDS The above screening plan will more or less reject all Thais who sleep with Thais from giving blood gay or straight.

[Impulse]

I agree with the policy.Just dont give blood.no needle pain. Mistakes are made in all aspects of health care,amputating the wrong foot,giving too much medicine,etc. Why risk the blood supply with hiv or hcv.Im glad they have the policy. its not homophobic,it makes perfect sense.

Today I heard a report on TV that the Government is now wanting to refuse accepting blood from Homosexuals/Gays/Katooey's. Did anyone else hear this report and if so is it true? Not every gay person is HIV or sleeps around!This hoary old topic - covered yonks ago - do a Search and stop wasting everyone's time

[bkkguy]

its not homophobic,it makes perfect sense.

it doesn't make sense and it is homophobic and feeds community prejudice and I am surprised the local gay activists here are so happy to be part of news stories with screaming headlines about gays being a danger to the community such as the one in the Nation a few days ago!

homosexuality is not the issue here - neither the US or Australian Red Cross guidelines mention homosexuality, they all focus on "men who have sex with men" and that difference is not just a subtle debating point

gay men in long-term monogamous relationships are no risk to the blood supply and men who have low risk sex with other men are of minimal risk to the blood supply, and while I can understand the difficulties in framing a questionnaire I think the US Red Cross guideline baring "a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977" is perhaps a bit extreme!

men in Thailand who have casual often unprotected sex with other males and also have often unprotected sex with their wives and girlfriends who because they are not "gay" are thus are not banned from giving blood are a great risk to the blood supply!

while I am not suggesting such groups should also be vilified in newspaper headlines I think is is irresponsible of the Thai Red Cross, the local activists and the local press to be handling the matter with so little attention to accuracy and social consequences

bkkguy

homosexuality is not the issue here - neither the US or Australian Red Cross guidelines mention homosexuality, they all focus on "men who have sex with men" and that difference is not just a subtle debating point

Now you have lost me - I had always thought that "homosexuality" meant "men who have sex with men". If there is a difference, does that mean that I am not gay after all??

What I would guess you are referring to as high risk are those indulging in unprotected sex and / or with multiple partners, whether gay or straight - if so, we are probably all talking the same language here.

[bkkguy]

Now you have lost me - I had always thought that "homosexuality" meant "men who have sex with men".

"homosexuality" is a sexual orientation or attraction that may or may not be expressed in sexual activity, "men who have sex with men" are engaging in sexual activity but may or may not identify themselves as homosexual, particularly in Thailand



we are probably all talking the same language here.

we may all be talking English but male to male sex is not the exclusive domain of homosexuals and anyone in the Thai Red Cross or the press or in this discussion here that sees "homosexuals" and "men who have sex with men" as identical interchangeable terms in this context is not using the language in a way that I would consider reasonable

bkkguy

we may all be talking English but male to male sex is not the exclusive domain of homosexuals and anyone in the Thai Red Cross or the press or in this discussion here that sees "homosexuals" and "men who have sex with men" as identical interchangeable terms in this context is not using the language in a way that I would consider reasonable

bkkguy

Now you've lost me! If male to male sex is not homosexual then what is it?

Now you've lost me! If male to male sex is not homosexual then what is it?Fun!

[Diec]

we may all be talking English but male to male sex is not the exclusive domain of homosexuals and anyone in the Thai Red Cross or the press or in this discussion here that sees "homosexuals" and "men who have sex with men" as identical interchangeable terms in this context is not using the language in a way that I would consider reasonable

bkkguy

Now you've lost me! If male to male sex is not homosexual then what is it?

What is old man young boy sex called?

This hoary old topic - covered yonks ago - do a Search and stop wasting everyone's time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a typical SELFISH reply to a genuine ignorant request for information from a foregner in a new country.

I always thought that the "majority" of Gay people were helpful, considerate and understanding.

We certainly will not bother to post here again!!
Meanwhile thank you, the others, for ALL the constructive information.....

[dave_tf-old]

The majority of posters here ARE helpful. The rest are comedians. Nobody speaks for anybody, so try to take what you see as bad with what you see as good. It all washes out in the end.

I always thought that the "majority" of Gay people were helpful, considerate and understanding.On which planet?

[Hmmm]

According to the editorial in the Nation, the questionnaire given to potential donors asks if they engage in unsafe sex. Whether or not this is equated with homosexuality, or male-to-male sex, in the question is not clear. They are also asked about their general health, whether they have experienced weight loss, whether they are on medication, etc.

But given the imprecise understanding of terms like gay / khatoey etc in Thailand, I wouldn't necessarily trust this or any other media reports as to exactly what the language used means in Thai.

According to the English language page at the Thai Red Cross, these are the requirements:

"Donors' Qualifications:
1. 17-60 years of age
2. Excellent health, with the weight over 45 kg
3. No history of hepatitis or jaundice
4. No history of malarial fever for the past 3 years and no sexually transmitted diseases, infectious diseases, persistent cough, coughing up blood, hemophilia, blood-related diseases, asthma, allergy, epilepsy, long-term skin diseases, kidney diseases, heart problems, diabetes, thyroid.
5. No considerable weight loss
6. No behaviors of sexual promiscuity. No record of drug use.
7. Blood donation is not recommended during the 6 months after a medical operation, child delivery, or abortion. In case of receiving donated blood, allow 1 year before giving blood.
8. Female donors are not menstruating or pregnant."
http://www.redcross.or.th/english/donat ... blood.php4 (http://www.redcross.or.th/english/donation/blood_wholeblood.php4)

The editorial does say that the cost of testing each unit of blood is 600 baht, and the container costs 400 baht.

BTW, phrases like "men who have sex with men" or "male to male sex" are used worldwide in public health so that men who may not necessarily identify as gay get the message that they are included in the target audience.

I think I can answer "no" to every question (except #8 which doesn't apply)