Equality on Campus

[jbailey]

I'm pleased to see that the McGill Student Union is now refusing to allow blood drives until anti-homosexual discriminatory questions on the questionnaire can be dropped. The problem is one of stupid questions combined with discrimination. My friend Katy put it best about when she went to fill out the questionnaire: "No, I can't guarantee that I know my partner's sexual history. But I'm willing to bet my life on it."

According to an article on a recent Public Health Agency of Canada report:

The PHAC report reveals that 51 per cent of those infected with HIV continue to be men who engage in homosexual activity.

(Note that the lifesite.net is a Christian, pro-life, anti-gay website. I don't have time at the moment to dig out either a better source or the original report.)

Perhaps I'm doing my math wrong, but at the point when 49% are those who don't identify as homosexual (and 40% of those are women), then you've probably got a third to half a chance that someone in that line isn't a man who's had sex with a man and could be HIV infected.

I hope that the McGill protest puts enough pressure on Health Canada to review this policy and drop the discrimination completely.

Comments

But

[(Anonymous)]

Given that homosexual men make up around 5% of the population, per capita homosexual men are much more likely to be HIV infected than the general population.

Not that more sensitivity couldn't be applied, but simple risk factors like man who has sex with men or injection-drug user are strong indicators of HIV and other infections.

Re: But

[(Anonymous)]

Let x be the number of Canadians infected with HIV 51% * x = number of Canadians infected with HIV who have had gay sex. Assume 10% of Canadians have had homosexual sex (probably a conservative figure; it was based upon Kinsey's research, the subjects of which were not randomly selected). Assume 50% of Canadians who have had homosexual sex are male (I have no idea if this is true or not). Thus there are roughly 30 000 000 * 10% * 50% = 1 500 000 Canadians who have had gay sex. The number of Canadians who have not had gay sex is therefore roughly 30 000 000 - 1 500 000 = 28 500 000. A = (51% * x)/1 500 000 = odds that a Canadian who has had gay sex has HIV B = (49% * x)/28 500 000 = odds that a Canadian who has *not* had gay sex has HIV B / A = 18.255 Conclusion: a Canadian who has had gay sex is roughly 18 times more likely to have HIV than one who has not. The Haema-Québec policy is discriminatory, but they have strong reasons to discriminate.

[broonie.livejournal.com]

Out of interest what are the questions they ask? The NHS in the UK does the same thing with a blatant "Are you gay?" question (to be fair to them the set of things they reject on is sufficiently wide to knock out enormous sections of the population; straight monogamous people who don't holiday anywhere at all exotic are generally OK).

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, discrimination is very bad and should be avoided at all cost. However, the problem with boycotting is two fold. Less blood for the people who need blood transfusions. Furthermore, I'm reasonable sure there is sound medical science that suggests HIV is transmitted more readily through homosexual contact. Someone made a judgement call somewhere, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are being discriminatory.

[airstrip-one.livejournal.com]

Remember that HIV tests are not 100% effective. The policy of not accepting blood donations from groups with much higher ratio of blood-transmitted diseases (10 times higher, in your example) is designed to minimize the likelihood of transmitting a disease during a blood transfusion.

Remember also that if your blood is not taken, the only thing you lose is a cookie and short-lived warm feeling of moral superiority.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think donating blood is a human right. It makes sense to exclude groups with high risk of infection. Don't you think there's been enough cases of tainted blood already?

Will you also be protesting the anti-tropical traveller discriminatory questions?

- Johan

[csext.livejournal.com]

this is a problem in the US too. i am technically not allowed to give blood anymore because i had sex about 5 years ago with a man born in nigeria and couldn't say for sure if he'd been in nigeria in the 10 years previous to our relationship.
also, as the US rules go there are "high-risk" situations that keep you from donating for X amount of years, but you can donate again after that time has passed. but if you are a man who has had sex with a man you can't ever donate again, no matter how many years it may or may not have been since then or how many tests you've had or the blood bank can do on the blood.
if i'm not mistaken the rule is that if you are a woman who has had sex with a man who has had sex with a man, then you can donate again after this X time period, but the man who you had sex with can't ever donate.
VERY discriminatory weird blanket rules out there. cheers for being up on this stuff, i need to check in and see if the US FDA has revisited these rules recently, i think they are supposed to soon.

Easy to put other people life on the line

[stebe-sama.livejournal.com]

Too bad that the McGill Student Union is not putting their lives on the line for the cause. They should be signing away their right to blood transfusions until the issue is solved to their satisfaction.

[terminal-pariah.livejournal.com]

I agree with this in principle, but in the end it's the people who need blood who will suffer.

[sweetlion.livejournal.com]

existing of such kind of a site is not something unbelievable. But instead of anti homosexual propaganda they might propagate just covenants.