TheUber

What a title, eh?

For those of you who know me well, you'll recall that I donate blood on a regular basis, and that I also volunteer at the blood clinics. For those of you who know CBS (Canadian Blood Services) well, you'll recall that any man who answers yes to having anal sex with another man gets automatically deferred. This has been an issue for a while. I personally feel it is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially considering the context and extremely wide blanket the population covers. And apparently, I'm not the only one.

In September of 2009, a gay man who had donated blood several times in the past sued Canadian Blood Services on grounds that questions asking about his sexuality was a violation of the Charter. The specific question is "Have you ever had sex with a man since 1977, even one time?", to which Mr. Freeman answered no to during his previous donations. This caused CBS to sue him, to which he filed the above counter-suit. (More information available at http://unambig.com/should-homosexual...-giving-blood/)

September 9th of this year, Canadian judge Catherine Aitken sided with CBS, stating that "[The] impact [of being deferred as a blood donor] is not in the same league as a blood recipient who has to use blood or blood products in order to survive or make life livable, and who is asked to accept lower safety standards even though an adequate supply of blood could be provided if higher safety standards were imposed." (Full article at http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/09/09...-bans-gay-men/)

In repsonse, CBS CEO Dr. Sher said in support of the decision, "All our policies are developed based on sound scientific facts about risk and are intended to reduce or pre-empt the introduction of those risks to recipients of blood products." (And again, see the rest at http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/200640.php)

My problem is not with deferring those who have the potential of carrying HIV. My problem is with the fact any man who has had anal sex with another man, even once, in the past 33 years is automatically rejected. This is an extremely wide period of time and population being covered, and in my opinion an unneccessarily wide one. First off, all donors are automatically tested for HIV, as well as a couple other conditions, regardless of any answers given. If the test is positive, the blood is disposed of and the person in question is informed and is basically put on the blacklist of blood donors. Now, scientific evidence shows that HIV is undetectable in these tests for the first 3 months. So, why is the question covering from now until 1977, and not simply the past 3 months? Hell, I'd be alright with the past 6 months, just to be safe. But the past 33 years just isn't necessary, and I believe such a question is a violation of the Charter.

Your thoughts?