Red Cross Bans Blood Donations From Gays

[sriracha john]

Red Cross bans gay donors

New rule rejects blood from homosexual men

The Thai Red Cross Society has resolved to reject blood donations from homosexual men in a move which has met with strong opposition from human rights organisations. The decision came after a study found that men who had sex with other men were at risk of contracting HIV/Aids and transmitting the blood-borne virus. The Thai Red Cross said it had large amounts of unused blood that had tested HIV-positive. Most of the infected blood was from men who were having unprotected sex with other men, according to in-depth interviews and preliminary tests, said the director of the National Blood Centre, Soisaang Pikulsod. For safety reasons, the bank is screening high-risk groups of blood donors through questionnaires. 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.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/31Mar2008_news11.php

[geriatrickid]

Before anyone pounces on the Red Cross, please understand that they are in a no win situation. The blood pool is incredibly high risk in Thailand with too many infected people not knowing they are infected or if they do know thinking that they will make merit by contributing blood.

Other blood agencies all over the world have the same policy. Canada has had this same policy ever since it's tainted blood scandal. It's not just HIV but Hepatitis too that's a cause for concern. The receipients have rights too and that is to obtain blood from low risk donors.

[Mosha]

Well unless it has changed in the UK. People from "high risk" groups are nor allowed to donate blood. That includes gays, drug users, people who have sex with prostitutes, unprotected or not. If in the last 6 months you have travelled through a high risk malaria area. Sorry but I think it is common sense.

Edited March 31, 2008 by Mosha

[BigSnake]

Red Cross bans gay donors

New rule rejects blood from homosexual men

The Thai Red Cross Society has resolved to reject blood donations from homosexual men in a move which has met with strong opposition from human rights organisations. The decision came after a study found that men who had sex with other men were at risk of contracting HIV/Aids and transmitting the blood-borne virus. The Thai Red Cross said it had large amounts of unused blood that had tested HIV-positive. Most of the infected blood was from men who were having unprotected sex with other men, according to in-depth interviews and preliminary tests, said the director of the National Blood Centre, Soisaang Pikulsod. For safety reasons, the bank is screening high-risk groups of blood donors through questionnaires. 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.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/31Mar2008_news11.php

They are a high risk group, Hmmmmmm!!

[sbk]

. 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.

Interesting since a USAID report suggests otherwise:

In 2005, more than 40 percent of new infections were among women, the majority of whom were infected through intercourse with long-term partners. Violence and a low level of condom use due to women's inability to negotiate safe sex are factors responsible for the spread of HIV among this group. Although the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Thailand has

declined, the epidemic has moved to the general population, and there is a greater need to match prevention efforts with recent changes in the epidemic.

USAID pdf document can be found here: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_healt...and_profile.pdf

[peterjohn]

. 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.

Interesting since a USAID report suggests otherwise:

In 2005, more than 40 percent of new infections were among women, the majority of whom were infected through intercourse with long-term partners. Violence and a low level of condom use due to women's inability to negotiate safe sex are factors responsible for the spread of HIV among this group. Although the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Thailand has

declined, the epidemic has moved to the general population, and there is a greater need to match prevention efforts with recent changes in the epidemic.

USAID pdf document can be found here: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_healt...and_profile.pdf

You have to understand why they ban these people before you jump up and down

when they test blood to make sure it is safe they put it in a batch and test several donors at the same time

if the test comes back taited then they throw the whole lot out

in some countrys they test 6or 7 at a time

how many do they test at a time in thialand

lot of waste

cheers

peter

[sbk]

Not jumping up and down, just find it interesting that they are targeting homosexuals and women who have unprotected sex with partners from high-risk countries and yet USAID finds that 40% of all new HIV/AIDS infections are among heterosexual women, many of whom get it from a long-term partner. Makes me very nervous to have a blood transfusion in this country if they are ignoring that fact.

[Theyreallrubbish]

Not jumping up and down, just find it interesting that they are targeting homosexuals and women who have unprotected sex with partners from high-risk countries and yet USAID finds that 40% of all new HIV/AIDS infections are among heterosexual women, many of whom get it from a long-term partner. Makes me very nervous to have a blood transfusion in this country if they are ignoring that fact.

You don't need to be nervous about the blood. Its all screened. The reason for this policy, as explained by a previous poster, is to reduce waste, and thus costs for the Red Cross. If their staff aren't being used taking blood from high risk donors and if less blood is being disposed of due to infection, then their overall costs per unit of useable blood comes down.

There's obviously no shortage of blood or donors from low risk groups or they wouldn't have instituted this policy of excluding high risk groups

[Ijustwannateach]

For some years, I have excused myself from donating blood to the Red Cross for this very reason- I knew I was already in what they perceive as a "high-risk" group and therefore would be screened out anyway if I were honest in the initial questionnaires.

This doesn't make me angry as I can understand that they are the ones who have the best data about WHO the high-risk groups are and the ones who bear the testing costs when the tested blood is useless. However, they will have to be very careful with their PR to make sure this is understood- and perhaps they can do some good while they're at it, reminding the high-risk groups that they are *still* high risk and need to be careful.

"S"

[twschw]

The American Red Cross has similar guidelines:

"HIV, AIDS

You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.

You are at risk for getting infected if you:

have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor

are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977

have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977

have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above

received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia

were born in, or lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria, since 1977.

since 1977, received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of these countries, or

had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of these countries. Learn more about HIV Group O, and the specific African countries where it is found.

You should not give blood if you have any of the following conditions that can be signs or symptoms of HIV/AIDS

unexplained weight loss (10 pounds or more in less than 2 months)

night sweats

blue or purple spots in your mouth or skin

white spots or unusual sores in your mouth

lumps in your neck, armpits, or groin, lasting longer than one month

diarrhea that won’t go away

cough that won’t go away and shortness of breath, or

fever higher than 100.5 F lasting more than 10 days."

I think it is best to be safe than sorry.

source: www.givelife2.org

[Junglejumbo]

Perhaps an age break down would be useful rather than banning an entire group in the short-term and then ban all later? From my understanding, the high risk gay group for both straight and gay is below 35. Above that, many still have the condom doctrine in their brains from 1980's campaigns or they will already know they've got it and hopefully wouldn't seek to donate blood.

There are definately problems with the younger generations albeit I guess older guys look for younger too which may make them risky if they throw away the condom. Of couse the younger guys will grow older so eventually all will have to banned, but perhaps it would be better from a PR point of view and get the message across as to why these guys can't give blood.

The Red Cross is probably also in a good position to know just how bad that the situation is here in Thailand as they have the lions share of annonymous testing and blood donations. I just wish that they would lobby the government to tell everyone the statistics and get the govt to ram it down people's throats with tv advertising and whatever, or tell everyone themselves but I am not sure that that is their job but it could be a big part of saving lives....which is definately their job and why people give them money.

If anyone is interested in the statistics, most of it is available on the web, but there was talk of a cover up last year regarding the true numbers. But to give some idea, we're talking above 30% for gay guys visiting saunas and up north in Chiang mai, rates amongst gay guys visiting saunas were close to 50% based on urine samples.

[hansnl]

For some years, I have excused myself from donating blood to the Red Cross for this very reason- I knew I was already in what they perceive as a "high-risk" group and therefore would be screened out anyway if I were honest in the initial questionnaires.

This doesn't make me angry as I can understand that they are the ones who have the best data about WHO the high-risk groups are and the ones who bear the testing costs when the tested blood is useless. However, they will have to be very careful with their PR to make sure this is understood- and perhaps they can do some good while they're at it, reminding the high-risk groups that they are *still* high risk and need to be careful.

"S"

You are very right to exclude yourself, if you think you are in a "risky" group.

However, maybe you are in the company of a rather big group of risks, Thai men?

But I must be wrong, just last week I heard a Thai man tell his Thai audience, that the farang were the reason for the HIV/AIDS epedemic.

He said more stupid things, like Thailand was surrounded by countries brimming with HIV and AIDS.

In Thailand it was not too bad, but the farang made it worse.

Yes, of couse, I must be wrong!

Point I want to make is, that everybody is at risk, and indeed the Red Cross should be very careful how and when to present their views, but also should be open about the HIV/AIDS risks.

So that means not to lay the blame only on a certain groups, but stress the fact that the blame can be laid everywhere if having sex without a condom is the norm.

[Ijustwannateach]

Rather, I exclude myself because *they* *know* I am in a risky group. I personally know I don't have HIV (at least at the date of my last testing) but I don't have access to the group data which proves my risk- and I choose not to lie or second-guess them.

The "blame the foreigners" strategy is an old one (in Japan, too) but ultimately HIV came to every country through a foreigner- knowing this doesn't help deal with the reality of the epidemic. HIV is like a social litmus test: it cuts through the sexual hypocrisy of any group of people.

[clausewitz]

Why would the newspapers print this when almost every country has such rules. In japan they don't accept blood from any non-Japanese. And even visting Thailand can make your blodd suspect in some western countries.

[PeaceBlondie]

Following the example of my father, who donated over a gallon of blood and had unlimited transfusion privileges, I donated blood regularly. Until I became active with gay men, and I have not donated since. I have never argued against that policy. The Thai Red Cross is not evil. I hope they get enough well-qualified, HIV-free, Thai, donors.

[sriracha john]

Donating death

HIV/Aids-infected people have been donating blood at the Thai Red Cross Society.It says it employs a "strict" screening process of blood donated to the blood bank. Blood given by homosexuals and people admitting to a culture of unprotected sex "in certain countries" will be checked rigorously for the life-threatening virus.

The society admits virus carriers "frequently" donate blood.

Its blood-bank director Dr Soisa-ang Phikulsod says as well as "observation" screening of homosexual, transsexual and transgender donors, the centre will add a question to its written form. That will ask donors if they engage in unprotected sex with either gender. The form already asks if donors engage in same-sex intercourse.

The question has not been asked previously because the society agreed with activist groups that is was unfair and discriminated against gay men.

Soisa-ang says donors in this country must meet standards set by the World Health Organisation. These include a minimum weight of 45 kilograms, no chronic diseases and no body piercing or tattoos a year prior to giving blood.

"Homosexuality is now a risk factor that we have to add," she said. Gay rights activist Nathee Theerarojjanaphong thinks the new conditions are "acceptable" and says anyone that engages in unprotected sex should not give blood.

Transgender beauty queen Krirkkong Suanyos, Miss Alcazar 2005, says he accepts the no-gays or transgender restriction on blood donations. But he says screening needs to be stricter.

"Many gay men hide it well but also many are not at risk of catching HIV/Aids," he says.

- Daily Xpress (today)

[elektrified]

The American Red Cross has similar guidelines:

I think it is best to be safe than sorry.

source: www.givelife2.org

Exactly. I for one feel much better that precautions be taken. I have good friends that fit into some of the high-risk categories. So no prejudice here but as twschw stated in his/her post, better safe than sorry.

[Junglejumbo]

I think it's not really about being better safe than sorry as all blood MUST be screened correctly regardless of the amount of blood being dealt with. If blood volume or numbers of donators does make a difference to the standard of testing, then we're all going to be sorry regardless of what groups may or may not donate. I think as some other poster said, this is about economics and the cost saving of throwing away several blood batches because of contamination. I just wonder where all that blood goes? Hopefully not into blood products for cows or chicken feed.....

[Theyreallrubbish]

I'm surprised the Red Cross has never marketed blood donation as a weight loss tool for young women. How many calories in a pint of blood?

So long as you give them iron tablets as they leave it could instantly solve all donation problems

[Heng]

One reason may be because many people use Red Cross blood donations as a free HIV/HCV test (and are not doing it purely for altruistic reasons). Compare to doing a blood workup at say Samitivej that includes anti-HIV and anti-HCV and it's about 2,000 Baht. Plenty of at risk/high risk folks out there don't look at 2,000 Baht as a drop in the disposable income bucket and from one point of view are taking advantage of the Red Cross.

[Ijustwannateach]

In any sane country HIV checks should be anonymous and free, and this is also not altogether "altruistic" (if one considers a healthy work force necessary to the success of one's capitalist country). I'm sure the Red Cross doesn't mind *too* much, but it's a shame that the government over the last 7-8 years has taken its eye off the ball (on this as well as many issues). I guess they must have much more important things to do.

[Heng]

Aboslutely. There should be free and anonymous testing, but I don't think it should be 'disguised' as blood donations just so folks can avoid the "embarrassment" of getting tested, nor should the blood of people who apparently feel a need for whatever reason to regularly get tested be used in hospitals. Feeling a need to regularly "donate" and "getting tested" are two different things.

[astral]

From my own observations HIV/AIDS is just as prevalent in the heterosexual population.

This is based on the local people in my area, who have died of AIDS related diseases over the last few years.

[jstumbo]

Not jumping up and down, just find it interesting that they are targeting homosexuals and women who have unprotected sex with partners from high-risk countries and yet USAID finds that 40% of all new HIV/AIDS infections are among heterosexual women, many of whom get it from a long-term partner. Makes me very nervous to have a blood transfusion in this country if they are ignoring that fact.

But look at the numbers. Maybe 40% of new cases are in women from sex with partners, but there are a lot of women having sex with their partners so the percentage of that population that is HIV+ is smaller.

I have no idea on the percentage of new cases that are homosexual men, but if it was 10%, well that is 10% of the total new cases coming from a much smaller part of the population, so the percentage of the people in that population that are HIV+ would be much higher.

[jdinasia]

One reason may be because many people use Red Cross blood donations as a free HIV/HCV test (and are not doing it purely for altruistic reasons). Compare to doing a blood workup at say Samitivej that includes anti-HIV and anti-HCV and it's about 2,000 Baht. Plenty of at risk/high risk folks out there don't look at 2,000 Baht as a drop in the disposable income bucket and from one point of view are taking advantage of the Red Cross.

HUH? a 1 hour rush job at the RedCross anonymous clinic is 200 baht ... it is less for the slower test

[Heng]

One reason may be because many people use Red Cross blood donations as a free HIV/HCV test (and are not doing it purely for altruistic reasons). Compare to doing a blood workup at say Samitivej that includes anti-HIV and anti-HCV and it's about 2,000 Baht. Plenty of at risk/high risk folks out there don't look at 2,000 Baht as a drop in the disposable income bucket and from one point of view are taking advantage of the Red Cross.

HUH? a 1 hour rush job at the RedCross anonymous clinic is 200 baht ... it is less for the slower test

Didn't say there weren't cheap alternatives and certainly not suggesting that all of those who may use Red Cross blood donations as 'saving themselves the embarrassment/stigma of regularly going in for an HIV/HCV' test are customers of higher tier private hospitals. But some are... straight and likely gay folks as well.

I say HUH! FEEL IT! FEEL IT!

[Mosha]

If you are in a high risk group do not donate. What is the frigging problem? Remember Arthur Ashe? He was suspected odf being homosexual, when the only thing is he received dirty blood. If I became HIV positive from a transfusion, I would want to know who I got the blood from

[jdinasia]

If you are in a high risk group do not donate. What is the frigging problem? Remember Arthur Ashe? He was suspected odf being homosexual, when the only thing is he received dirty blood. If I became HIV positive from a transfusion, I would want to know who I got the blood from

You need to catch up with the times.

Arthur Ashe got his blood transfusion in 1983, a year before much was known about what later became known as HIV/AIDS and a year before there was a test for blood.

Edited April 2, 2008 by jdinasia

[Scott]

What and how the Thai Red Cross does it job is of little concern to me, what is of concern is that they publicly single out one group. Not accepting or taking the blood isn't discrimination, it's a decision based on certain facts. The fact that they publicly come out and say this is discrimination. It raises more questions than it answers.

Lots and lots of people lie about their sexuality and certainly won't tell anyone they had sex with risk groups. Also, as noted before, many, many women in long-term relationships, including marriage, are becoming HIV positive.

What I want to hear from the Red Cross isn't who they are excluding, but who they are including and how careful they are with testing. It would have been better that this simply not be advertised.

[Tinkelbell]

If you are in a high risk group do not donate. What is the frigging problem? Remember Arthur Ashe? He was suspected odf being homosexual, when the only thing is he received dirty blood. If I became HIV positive from a transfusion, I would want to know who I got the blood from

Yes, I remember 'Arthur Ashe' (R-I-P) very well.

It was very sad to see him a few months before his death. Even near death this tennis great was still active in running tennis charity event in Doral County Club (The famous site for Ryder Open golf tournament). Sad because his life was eating away by deadly AIDS in which he got it from the tainted blood during an operation.

What a waste of life. We had lost one of the great tennis icon to something we can prevent.

I'm all for the Red Cross's action on this issue.