There is a huge uproar here about our national bloodbank racially classifying blood.
They have 4 categories, from regular white and indian donors (Cat 1) to first time black or gay male donors in Cat 4 with the other 2 categories containing regular black donors etc. You get the picture.
When blood is needed firstly the 'safe' C1 blood is issued then C2, 3, 4.
They do this because HIV can be dormant in blood for an uncertain window of time and black and gay men are statistically higher risks for AIDS. This is a fact.
Now the everyone is shouting racism blah blah blah and they ordered the bloodbank to stop their racist practices.
I can't believe this! HIV/AIDS is a big problem in SA and statistically black people have a higher infection rate than the other races in my country.
The government says it wants to stop the spread of AIDS and they will do anything to help in the fight against AIDS. The bloodbank tries to do the same and they are now labeled racists and ordered to stop their AIDS prevention measures!
Makes you sick, doesn't it? Is racism really a bigger issue than the spread of the most dangerous disease in the bloody world?
Now, if I ever need a transfusion, I have a higher statistical chance of contracting AIDS, because my government thinks racially classifying blood smacks of the time of 'old regime'!
My god, I could strangle all of them.
Originally posted by Crowleyhttp://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/health/blood-ss/blood2.htm
There is a huge uproar here about our national bloodbank racially classifying blood.
They have 4 categories, from regular white and indian donors (Cat 1) to first time black or gay male donors in Cat 4 with the other 2 categories containing regular black donors etc. You get the picture.
When blood is needed firstly the 'safe' C1 blood is issued then C2 ...[text shortened]... classifying blood smacks of the time of 'old regime'!
My god, I could strangle all of them.
Don't really get the whole fiasco that seems to have broken out, what gets me is that they don't allow gays to donate. I understand in the US gays are the higher risk group, but here it is heterosexuals who are.
What was bad was reporting that Mbekis blood was burnt, disclosing that doesn't put much faith in them keeping information confidential, and also would get a few peoples backs up.
No problem with them not using the blood(and everyone should be treated as equal when filling in the forms), just that I thought it was against doctors policies and the SANBS policies in particular to reveal that information.
It would put a lot of people off donating to know that if they donate the information could be released about the state of their blood.
Originally posted by Crowleyis this true in SA? I know attitudes might be very different over your way. I do know that in the UK the higher risks of AIDs transfer in homosexual relationships have now been offset by the much greater following of safe sex, esp. condoms to such an extent that rate of new heterosexuals with AIDs are rising and homosexuals are falling fast.
Gay men are a high risk group because condom use has always been more prevelant in heterosexual sex.
As for the blood thing, safest is best surely??
Originally posted by belgianfreakI think this is mostly true for the older gay men (didn't really know about AIDS) and prisoners (ex and present). I'm sure the higher percentage of heterosexual people are now easily eclipsing the invected gay numbers easily... but gay men are still considered a high risk category.
is this true in SA? I know attitudes might be very different over your way. I do know that in the UK the higher risks of AIDs transfer in homosexual relationships have now been offset by the much greater following of safe sex, esp. con ...[text shortened]... falling fast.
As for the blood thing, safest is best surely??
About safest being best - that's exactly what I thought. But apparently in my country, rooting out anything that might be considered racist is more important than safe blood.
Originally posted by CrowleyThere is a parallel situation in this country. There are those in government who insist that airport security not show any bias in how they screen passengers. That is, security is expected to check out a 75-year-old Japanese female with the same degree of rigor as they do a 25-year-old Saudi male.
Makes you sick, doesn't it? Is racism really a bigger issue than the spread of the most dangerous disease in the bloody world?
Thats the problem with profiling. Take a look at the pics of the 9/11 guys, majority of them without to much bother could have made themselves look like white westerners. So if the security is looking out for guys dressed up like Bin Laden, easier for the guys in armani suits to walk by. I thought Saudis were friends with the US? 😉
Most gay friends of mine use condoms, and have regular AIDs tests done, none of my straight friends do. The reason gay guys are more susceptible to AIDs is that the "relations" they perform usually bring chance of contact with more blood vessels than straight sex.
Originally posted by Paul Diracdon't get me started. FOr all the front US airport security is a joke in many airports. Being a UK citizen and flying 1 way a lot gets me the full search on every US flight, and it's often ludicrous. One guy spent 5 minutes inspecting my transparent lighter when I emptied my pockets but then forgot to scan me with the metal detector. Another girl took me & my friend past ordinary security to be personally searched (no rubber gloves fortunatly). I chatted to her while my friend was in the booth, and when he come out she told us we could go. She'd forgotten to search me at all, after having me bypass even the standard metal detector. And when I get on a flight and teh air host(ess) asks anyone who shouldn't be on the flight to get off beofre they close the doors it makes me cringe - shouldn't they know who is on the plane???
There is a parallel situation in this country. There are those in government who insist that airport security not show any bias in how they screen passengers. That is, security is expected to check out a 75-year-old Japanese female with the same degree of rigor as they do a 25-year-old Saudi male.
It seems the problem is that although US security has increased in that they have longer lines while they inspect shoes and frisk more people, as long as they employ muppets to do the job security will continue to be a joke. Not a very funny one either if something does get past them!
Originally posted by belgianfreakWhen I travelled to the US with a friend, who has a very weatherbeaten face, he got stopped at every check (4 seperate flights so 4 times).
don't get me started. FOr all the front US airport security is a joke in many airports. Being a UK citizen and flying 1 way a lot gets me the full search on every US flight, and it's often ludicrous. One guy spent 5 minutes inspecting my transparent lighter when I emptied my pockets but then forgot to scan me with the metal detector. Another girl took ...[text shortened]... urity will continue to be a joke. Not a very funny one either if something does get past them!
Some random check!!
Originally posted by CrowleyHey Crowley,
There is a huge uproar here about our national bloodbank racially classifying blood.
They have 4 categories, from regular white and indian donors (Cat 1) to first time black or gay male donors in Cat 4 with the other 2 categories containing regular black donors etc. You get the picture.
When blood is needed firstly the 'safe' C1 blood is issued then C2 ...[text shortened]... classifying blood smacks of the time of 'old regime'!
My god, I could strangle all of them.
How doin'?
I think that all blood needs to be tested for known dangers before it is distributed. Costly though.
I took myself off the donor list voluntarily because nobody could answer the following questions:
1 - I have psoriasis. What causes it? Is there a danger of transmission of my blood causing trouble for the recipient or his/her offspring?
2 - I have had sarcoma tumors. Is it safe for me to donate when you can't tell me what caused the tumors?
For what it's worth. If we stop paying for blood, we solve half the problem. The other must be worked out with science, not peoples color, credo or beliefs.
Originally posted by belgianfreakLet us imagine homosexuals make up 10% of the population and 10% are HIV positive. And for the 90 % heterosexuals, 2 % are HIV positive. Pure imagination !
is this true in SA? I know attitudes might be very different over your way. I do know that in the UK the higher risks of AIDs transfer in homosexual relationships have now been offset by the much greater following of safe sex, esp. condoms to such an extent that rate of new heterosexuals with AIDs are rising and homosexuals are falling fast.
As for the blood thing, safest is best surely??
Approximately 3% of the population are HIV positive and your chances of being infected by a hetero are twice as high as being infected by a homosexual. Yet by asking homosexuals not to donate blood, you cut the risk of infection from 3 to 2%.
If discrimination is based on evidence and not prejudice, I have no problem with it.
Here the 'discrimination' is based on evidence.
Statistics show that about 15% of SA are HIV+. This is modest statistic - I'd say because so many people in rural areas have never been tested (or even know about AIDS), the figure should be closer to 20%.
This is a big percentage, so infected blood is a BIG and very real risk.
Most of that infected percentage of people are black - so we should discriminate!