Canadian Blood Services

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

They ask men if they have had sex with a man since 1977 and if the answer is yes, he is not permitted to donate. (I understand this is under review).

 

The questionnaire also asks if you've had sex in exchange for money or drugs since 1977. Does anyone know if everyone who answers yes is barred from donating?

 

http://www.blood.ca/CentreApps/Internet/UW_V502_MainEngine.nsf/resources/Eligibility/$file/ROD2011-05-01.pdf

 

If so, this makes me angry. Even though I'm against the ban on MSM donating, I understand that MSM are a group that is at high-risk of HIV/AIDS. There is absolutely no evidence that sex workers are more prone to HIV/AIDS or any other STD/STI.

 

How can Canadian Blood Services make policies that are myth-based rather than fact-based???

 

Oh, and since when is HIV transmitted on money???

[Lowdark 5613]

I think this may be an unfortunate case of the myth being acepted as fact. You would expect better from a government agency. The truth of the matter is, responsible sex workers are less prone to STDs and STIs than the average sexually active person. But try telling that to John and Jane Public. I have heard many calls for a broad, agency wide policy review for Canadian Blood Services but I doubt there's any potitical appetite for it right now. It's a shame that change only seems to occur as a result of a crisis or during an election year.

[BarrhavenWoody 10776]

Do you remember about 20 years ago a number of people contracted HIV through blood transfusions. Because of this, Canadian Blood Services has completely changed their screening process. I am sure that they have gone a little overboard, and perhaps are basing some of this on myths rather than facts, however I don't think that is a bad thing. I, for one, would prefer them to err on the side of caution. If you ask any of the relatives of those unfortunate people that got HIV through a blood transfusion (you can't ask the victims directly, because almost all of them have since passed away!) I am sure they would agree.

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

Do you remember about 20 years ago a number of people contracted HIV through blood transfusions. Because of this, Canadian Blood Services has completely changed their screening process. I am sure that they have gone a little overboard, and perhaps are basing some of this on myths rather than facts, however I don't think that is a bad thing. I, for one, would prefer them to err on the side of caution. If you ask any of the relatives of those unfortunate people that got HIV through a blood transfusion (you can't ask the victims directly, because almost all of them have since passed away!) I am sure they would agree.

I'm sure all the victims would want a fact-based methodology for screening donors rather than a myth-based methodology. There are a lot of dangers in a myth-based methodology, including a false sense of security. The current system also allows higher-risk people to screen in, while disqualifying lower-risk people. This is not conducive to stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS.

 

I'm also positive that the families of people needing life-saving blood would want a fact-based methodology that protects their loved ones, and also allows for safe donors to donate. We need people to donate to save lives, and I'm out!

[cat 262460]

What has always confused me is how do people contract diseases from blood that has been tested? Someone answers a question and they don't bother testing that donation? I think the testing of the donation is more important than the questionaire.

cat

[Isabella Gia (Banned) 53881]

I agree with you Cat they should pay more attention to testing blood from those who donate but then doesn't HIV take 3 months at least to show in a test? Perhaps the problem came from people who recently got the virus so it did not show in the test results? Just saying but yes, a question is not enough. There may even be crazy ppl out there who are aware of having something and lie about it.

Posted via Mobile Device

[roamingguy 300292]

Just to add to the discussion, I think the Canadian Blood Services wants pure uncontamanated blood (in itself a good thing), but they utilize in their screening process, profiling (such as sex in exchange for money, men having sex with men etc) using stereotypes. I may be wrong but their sterotyping extends to drug use. They don't accept any drug user. I can understand not wanting users of illegal drugs, but it extends to all drug users. I take a prescription drug, have since 1980, and likely wouldn't be here now if I didn't. Got told when I offerred to donate blood, your on a prescription, can't donate, end of story. BTW I've never taken any illegal drugs not even marijuana, ever in my life, nor have I drank, since 1980. But I'm not able to donate

Their screening process is so strict based both on real risk management and also, in addition, sterotypical profiling, probably to err on the side of safety, but in reality, a lot of good blood donor candidates get turned away

There, a long winded rambling

RG

 

Some quick additional thoughts/questions/ramblings

1. Do individuals who have tattoos get barred from donating? Never know whether the tattoo

parlour (or maybe homemade tattoo) practiced proper sterilization/hygiene practices.

2. The issue of paying/getting paid for sex. What if, for example, a woman gets involved with a

man who unbeknownst to her sees/has seen a SP. She wouldn't know, but by standards the

Canadian Blood Service uses, she is equally a bad candidate. Likewise, what if a man is involved

with a woman who once was involved with a man who saw SP's...well you get the idea, also

should be a bad candidate by CBS standards

3 Is it ok to be a single man/woman sexually active (but no money changes hands) playing the field

though. Gee, maybe it's that pesky money that spreads disease and dirtys blood (yes, said very

sarcastically)...mind you seeing SP's is far less expensive in the long run than relationships, somewhere along the line in a relationship, money (in the form of dating, gifts, etc) comes into play

4. Guess the only ideal candidates are those who are celebate, no tattoos, or liars

5. Do you fill out the screening form once only? If so you may be an ideal candidate (by CBS standards) when filling out the form, but at a later date may begin to see SP's, or become a SP. Do you fill out the form every time you donate?

[TGirl-Kay 7484]

I'm told I can't donate for many reasons one of them being that I ate beef in England in the 1980's. (Mad cow )

I agree with Meg that myth based screening is a bad Idea and am left wondering who it is that can donate given all the restrictions.

I'm not sure that many of the people in my life would be able to.

[Andee 220524]

Back when it was the Red Cross who were in charge, I was denied from donating because I admitted I had gone for acupuncture. I assure them they always use new sterilized needles that came in a blister pak and they would open them right in front of me. But the RC staff said to me they had no way of knowing if those needles were indeed sterile. That was back in 1989.

 

More recently, like Megan said, I do not qualify because I am a sex worker.

 

I suppose I could lie, but I'd rather see the policies changed so that those of us who would like to donate blood, can.

 

So, is it just sex workers (who accept money for sex) who are banned?

What about men who pay for sex? Are they banned?

Or people who have unprotected sex with people for free?

 

It's a serious issue.

[Code Blue 3585]

CBS change their requirements over time.

 

The Krever Inquiry was the trigger for a mass reorganisation of the whole blood collection service.

 

They try a risk management approach and so while they test every donated unit, they want to reduce the likelihood of them collecting blood which will test positive as they will have spent the collection costs for nought. Their screening for "high risk" is somewhat arbitrary.

 

Tattoos and eating British Beef are still as far as I know exclusion criteria. The issue of sex with men is simply seen by them as a screening question to exclude a group who may have an increased risk of sero-positivity. The generic nature of the question "spares" their staff from having to delve into aspects of MSM activity which are truly high risk.

 

 

CB

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

So, is it just sex workers (who accept money for sex) who are banned?

What about men who pay for sex? Are they banned?

My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that men who have paid for sex are banned for donating for 12 months. Interesting, people who've had sex with a sex worker in the last 12 months (eg. boyfriends, husbands) also appear to be banned from donating.

Or people who have unprotected sex with people for free?

They ask the question "In the last 6 months, have you had sex with someone whose sexual history you do not know?" I assume if you answer yes, you are barred.

 

This doesn't make sense to me. If I sleep with someone who is a total manwhore, and I know he is a manwhore, is that okay because I know it?

 

I'll be honest, the riskiest (unprotected) sex I've engaged in I did for free and it will not disqualify me from donating. The safest sex I've had has been for pay and disqualifies me from donating. No amount of money will get me to take a condom off. (Okay, well maybe 100 million and then I'd fund research to cure all STD's and STI's lolz).

 

I think it's absolutely insane that CBS doesn't seem to recognize the difference between protected and unprotected sex and the fact that one is much riskier than the other!!

[mrrnice2 157005]

Back in the spring I began a thread entitled organ donation http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=50302

 

At the time I submitted it if I had thought of it a bit harder I would have realized that most of us, by virtue of our participation in this lifestyle, would in fact be eliminated.

 

The safety of blood that is being being donated is critical for the ultimate recipient.

 

Blood, like organs can be a lifesaving donation.

 

At the time of giving approval for the donation of my wifes organs I do know that I had a personal interview about her health history, including a section concerning her sexual history. It all happened under obviously stressful circumstances, so I do not recall every question, but I am certain that there was no question about her having had sexual activities with money as a criteria. There were questions about her having had sex with men who had had sex with other men.

 

It is interesting that blood and organs donations appear to have different criteria regarding the acceptability of the donor based on lifestyle.

 

Is it possible that the questions vary from province to province, as we were not in Ontario.

 

Due to the critical nature of time, an organ donation would seem to lend itself to acceptability based on an interview and questionnaire more so than blood. I would expect that in most cases the blood can be or is tested before it is used to help another person?

 

 

 

"The gift of life"

[roamingguy 300292]

 

They ask the question "In the last 6 months' date=' have you had sex with someone whose sexual history you do not know?" I assume if you answer yes, you are barred.

 

 

 

I think it's absolutely insane that CBS doesn't seem to recognize the difference between protected and unprotected sex and the fact that one is much riskier than the other!![/quote']

 

The question, "In the last 6 months have you had sex with someone whose sexual history you do not know" is really, on close analysis, a dumb question. All you know about you sexual partner's history is what she/he tells you, and it could be all true, all lies, or some true some lies. Even people in committed monogomous relationships (ie marriage) take their partner's fidelty on faith. In how many relationships is one of the partners engaged in affair(S) In short, you only know your own sexual history. Your partner(s) sexual history you can never know, 100 percent, for fact.

A quick thought

RG

[KaceyKatzegeist 152]

Last time I donated (I haven't in awhile due to piercings and tattoos), the question regarding tattoos was if you had one done in the LAST SIX MONTHS. I guess most diseases will show up by then.

 

For awhile, every time they called me to donate, they'd tell me they'd call back in six months because I'd gotten a new piercing or tattoo. (Pretty much this whole year is written off that way.)

[JuliasUndies 7288]

We're living in an 8 bit world!

[IvyBlyss 713]

Well, if they really were serious about the demand being high , they could take our blood to at least have as back up and test it however there were issues due to me having tattoos , not sure if that's the case anymore .

[Andee 220524]

 

This doesn't make sense to me. If I sleep with someone who is a total manwhore' date=' and I know he is a manwhore, is that okay because I know it?

 

[/quote']

 

I have been propositioned by men who I would identify as "manwhores" who objected to me asking them to wear condoms. I argued that that was non-negotiable and besides I knew of at least 3 women that one guy admitted to sleeping with unprotected. He balked and insisted those women were "clean" so if he was to donate blood and asked if he had slept with anyone whose sexual history they were unaware of they, hey would respond "no" because in his mind, that is what he believes to be true.

 

Which proves the screening is bullshit - only the testing of the blood is the definitive indicator.

 

But guys like this have the audicity to argue they were "trusting" me that I was clean since I'm a sex worker (and always use protection not like their "free" dates). Like, WTF. Guess what - that was the deal breaker. They can have their bar sluts and take their chances.

 

I get so sick of hearing of how lucky I am how a guy takes a chance sleeping with me because I'm a sex worker when I always use protection but yet they don't hesitate to sleep with other women for free and not use protection. Ugh...

[Zoe Zee 13876]

This infuriates me as well as I would like to donate blood and if I truthfully answer the questions, I am banned from it. I know somebody who had cancer, beat it but now can no longer give blood - he was upset as well.

[Rounding Third 9568]

The questionnaire also asks if you've had sex in exchange for money or drugs since 1977. Does anyone know if everyone who answers yes is barred from donating?

 

 

About 8 years ago I was asked this question and was banned for my answer. Lying was not an answer because we should not have to lie. Because this question appeared on a tick the box checklist completed by the nurse the answer is documented (Perhaps this point was already raised as I have not read everyting on this thread).

 

Because of this. I did not give blood on that day or any time since which itself is a travesty

 

I am glad you rasied this Meg and I am glad for the outrage.

[Lowdark 5613]

Obviously, the utmost caution and care has to be taken with the blood supply, as evidenced by some avoidable tragedies in the past. But the simple fact of the matter is that some of the criteria they use on these questionnaires bars people with clean useful blood while those who have questionable donations are free to contribute. And the other possibility is people, for whatever reason, can lie on questionnaires. The only criteria that should be used is the result of thorough, careful testing. As Megan has said, they are turning away useful blood despite claims of high demand. Even if it means they maintain a supply of blood for several months waiting for any potential problems to surface, isn`t that better than simply turning all that good blood away?

[Guest Ou**or**n]

Screening + testing when used in combination gives the safest blood. No test is 100% accurate so the screening part is still an essential component. Another argument advanced for this policy was to the desire to avoid having people using giving blood as an indirect means of getting a blood test.

 

However I agree completely that the logic behind screening out people who have sex for money (both provider and client) is indeed quite flawed. Both providers and clients that use condoms will statistically be much safer than anyone in the general adult population who is having unprotected sex outside of a monogamous relationship.

 

I too am frustrated by this requirement as I used to be a donor and stopped because of this requirement as I too won't lie. However I know my blood is quite safe by both my safe sex practices and my own personal regular tests.

 

I guess they are concerned about male sexual tourists who may visit parts of the world where paid sex without a condom can still be obtained. However they could simply reword the question - have you ever had paid sex without using a condom.

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

I guess they are concerned about male sexual tourists who may visit parts of the world where paid sex without a condom can still be obtained. However they could simply reword the question - have you ever had paid sex without using a condom.

If you are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners (or where your partner has multiple partners) does it really matter whether you paid for it or not?

[Guest Ou**or**n]

If you are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners (or where your partner has multiple partners) does it really matter whether you paid for it or not?

 

I agree as I was only trying to pare down their illogical statement a little. A more effective question would eliminate the 'paid' aspect completely. I sense ideology much more than logic in almost any discussion of sexual practices when the concept of 'paid' makes any difference.

[roamingguy 300292]

I suppose if you had sex with a lady who was a escort, but no money changed hands (she's a friend with benefits) that's ok

Very understandable about persons in prisons (drug use, homemade tattoos w dirty needles, STD's), but by extension, inmate's wives/girlfriends should be included as well

But I guess the perfect candidate is a celibate individual who has no disease, and never left Canada.

RG

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

I suppose if you had sex with a lady who was a escort, but no money changed hands (she's a friend with benefits) that's ok

Very understandable about persons in prisons (drug use, homemade tattoos w dirty needles, STD's), but by extension, inmate's wives/girlfriends should be included as well

Partners of sex workers are rejected on the CBS questionnaire.