*Sigh*

[happydalek]

This is so stupid.

They should just perfect synthetic human blood and be done with it.  But I've always puzzled over the lifetime deferral for being paid for sex.  What, is prostitution contagious as well? 

Comments

[rhube.livejournal.com]

O_o. Word. Lifetime deferral is a bit silly. If they really think these groups are more at risk of HIV then a simple HIV test... but I guess that would make too much sense.

[happydalek.livejournal.com]

I used to be a regular donor, and from the litany of questions (both verbal and on paper) they ask, it seems that donor screening is based more on phobias and voodoo magic than actual science! Particularly questions like, "Have you had sex, even once, with a male who has had sex with another male, even once, since 1977?"

I could understand the HIV phobia back in say, 1990, but nowadays? Too right, rhube, no sense at all.

[rhube.livejournal.com]

I wonder if Britland is as bad. To my shame, I've never given blood, so I don't know. I actually meant to the last time I saw they were doing it on campus, but I forgot. I think they stopped letting my Dad give blood because he lived in a malarial country as a child, and my Uncle Ron never could, as he actually had malaria. Beyond that... my knowledge is slight to nothing.

I don't think it's just a phobia. Prostitutes and those who partake of anal sex (women and hetero-sexual men as well as gay men) are more at risk. Prostitues have more sex, and are possibly more likely to end up in vulnerable situations where they are pressurised into unprotected sex. Gay men probably (on the whole - I know some hetero-arse-fiends) have more anal sex, so the chance of unprotected anal sex goes up with the general amount of anal sex. Also, last I heard, the number of HIV positive people has only gone up since 1990 (they had a big highlighting campaign thing last year on our campus - but I could be misremembering). So, there is reason to regard these groups as more at risk. But if you've had protected sex, and have been tested for HIV and come up negative (I had it done for my Australian visa, which was amusing, 'cause I've never had sex, or a blood transfusion, for that matter, but they like to be safe) - well then... mkunk? Perhaps they think such tests are too expensive. I don't know. A lot of people of all genders and persuasions get tested for STIs as a matter of course before getting to the naughty stage of their relationship (seems a bit excessive to me, but I'm told it happens) and I really don't see why people who have been tested since they last put themselves in a situation when they are at risk shouldn't be allowed to give blood.

*shrugs* I wonder if they ask women 'So, madam, have you ever taken it up the arse?'

[happydalek.livejournal.com]

I understand that certain groups are at higher risk for certain illnesses, and that tests are not foolproof, so the precautions and limitations make perfect sense on a certain level. I wouldn't want tainted blood (unless I would die without it, and it was tainted with something curable that wouldn't kill me in the meantime). I'm just amazed at the implicit lack of trust the blood bank has about everybody who donates (and I am a paranoid, distrustful pessimist to start with), and just reading through the list of questions, it almost looks like a medieval checklist for identifying witches or something (disclaimer: but I tend to have a weird way of viewing the world). As you say, surely there should be some area they could afford to lighten up about? As to your final question, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it turning up on the questionaire (sp?).

Ultimately, I think it's got more to do with hospitals and blood banks covering their arse in case of litigation than with the public's heath.

[happydalek.livejournal.com]

The next time I donate, I should go all the way through the Q&A session and then casually remark at the end, "Oh, by the way, I'm a vampire, and I noticed you didn't have any questions about that on the form. Can I still donate?" and see how they respond.