More AIDS Foolishness in South Africa

This time coming from militant gay activists who think the health of the general public should be put at risk for the sake of their sense of self-esteem.

Gay activists in South Africa have vowed to "flood" the country's blood services with blood donated by gay men.

This follows an announcement by the South African National Blood Services that it would not accept donations from men who have sex with men.

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance says its members would lie when asked the question: "Have you had male-to-male sex in the past five years?"

The Alliance claims members have already donated 120 units of blood.

It aims to flood the blood services with 70,000 units.

Alliance spokesman Juan Uys describes the question as "humiliating, offensive and an insult to gay men". He says all blood should be treated equally.

What a bloody fool! We're supposed to just ignore such important risk factors because some idiot feels "insulted" by the truth?

Mr Uys said the question of risk of HIV infection was no reason to discriminate against gay men.

Well, yes, he would say that, wouldn't he?

He says if people were discriminated against based on risk, then South African women between the ages of 18 and 24 should not be allowed to donate, as research shows that they are the group with the highest HIV infection rate in the country.

Let us accept for a second that what he says is true - though I think it's a load of rubbish, even in South Africa, given just how much more risky anal sex is - even if Mr Uys were right, this would not be an argument for taking blood from men who acknowledge engaging in sex with men, but an argument for also excluding women within the 18-24 bracket from the pool of potential donors. It's just incredibly stupid to expect health workers to willingly raise the risks associated with blood transfusions just so some people don't get to feel stigmatized.

All this daft protest tells me about South Africa's Gay and Lesbian Alliance is that its membership appears to primarily consist of narcissists who don't give a damn about anybody or anything which doesn't give them a nice warm feeling inside. The dumbest thing of all is that their declaration of an intent to "flood" the country's bloodbanks with their contributions shows just how ineffectual and reliant on a sense of honor the questionnaire they're protesting really is - it's completely useless against self-absorbed idiots who'd willingly put others at greater peril for such a petty reason. At least with the young women the foolish Mr. Uys claims to be most risky, it's easy enough to roughly assess their ages by eye and quietly discard their contributions after they're gone, while no such safeguard exists with malice-ridden gay militants looking to make a point with others' lives.

Comments

[malomas29]

That's a great idea make it harder to verify South Africa has a clean blood supply. That will teach the evil homophobes to try to limit the risk of a contaminated blood supply. SA may be in a region that has the most severe HIV/AIDS victims.

But some battles must be fought!!!!

---------------
I can't stand this sort of activism.
They might as well bomb a clinic while they are at it.

[Andrew]

"Let us accept for a second that what he says is true - though I think it's a load of rubbish, even in South Africa, given just how much more risky anal sex is - even if Mr Uys were right, this would not be an argument for taking blood from men who acknowledge engaging in sex with men, but an argument for also excluding women within the 18-24 bracket from the pool of potential donors."

Two things - 1. Your argument would suggest that they should screen out people who have had anal sex (not just gay men, but also women who have had anal sex with men who have also had anal sex with a man) - not all men who have sex with men have anal sex. [No way to verify, obviously, but there's no way to verify the current question either.] 2. I won't condone the "lie to give blood" actions, but the point of this counterargument is that the blood rule is unjust, not rational, discrimination - homophobia, not rational statistical judgment. A cursory Google search suggests there are no statistics on HIV infection rates for gay men in South Africa; you may well be right on this point, which would make this argument moot.

[Abiola]

"Your argument would suggest that they should screen out people who have had anal sex (not just gay men, but also women who have had anal sex with men who have also had anal sex with a man) - not all men who have sex with men have anal sex."

Fine, then a rewording of the question is needed, not simply throwing it out in the name of "injustice."

"I won't condone the "lie to give blood" actions, but the point of this counterargument is that the blood rule is unjust, not rational, discrimination - homophobia, not rational statistical judgment."

No, it's nothing of the kind. Given what we know of HIV statistics elsewhere in the world, and just how much easier it is to pass the virus on through anal sex, it is perfectly reasonable from a statistical viewpoint to exclude men who engage in said sex act with other men from the donor pool, just as it's perfectly reasonable that British visitors to the US aren't allowed to donate blood there due to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, something I never had a problem with despite falling under. There is no such thing as a "right" to donate blood: it's voluntarily done in order to save other people's lives, not to give militants an opportunity to exercise their narcissism, and to expect SA's health authorities to have to meticulously compile statistical records at great expense before reaching the perfectly rational decision that it's just easier to exclude certain obvious risk groups is what is itself unreasonable. Why should they have to raise their costs of operation in order to spare the feelings of people who aren't under any compulsion to donate in the first place?

[Andrew]

No, I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. My point was that *if* they are right that females age 18-24 actually have a higher infection rate than gay men (which you dispute), then the fact that gay men, but not females age 18-24, are barred from blood donation reveals prejudice against gays, not rational discrimination. [The overly broad wording of the question is another piece of evidence for this.] Obviously, if it's actually the case the gay men have a higher infection rate than females age 18-24 (as you say), then this would indeed be rational discrimination, not prejudice or even injustice. And though it is reasonable not to ask the public health office to do their own research, if they are presented with credible evidence that women age 18-24 do actually have higher risk (I don't know whether the research Uys cites is credible), they should at least consider changing the policy. (And, I have to wonder what prompted them to change the policy of destroying blood donated by black people when as far as I can tell, black people do actually have a higher infection rate - http://www.avert.org/safricastats.htm )

[Abiola]

"if they are presented with credible evidence that women age 18-24 do actually have higher risk (I don't know whether the research Uys cites is credible), they should at least consider changing the policy."

Well sure, though one has to ask why Uys isn't campaigning for this rather than suggesting they ignore risk factors altogether.

"I have to wonder what prompted them to change the policy of destroying blood donated by black people when as far as I can tell, black people do actually have a higher infection rate"

Racial politics, obviously - remember this is South Africa we're talking about - though for all one knows the blood still *is* being destroyed, only more discreetly ...

[shakuhachi]

This is insane. Protest is one thing, endangering lives is another. Can these gay activists guarantee that no aids infect blood will get into the blood supply? If it does, they should be charged with reckless endangerment.

[mercia]

It was a hoax:
http://www.theherald.co.za/herald/news/n12_18012006.htm

How quick you all were to fall for it.

[Andrew]

Well, not a hoax per se - at least not the way the Hetracil thing was a hoax. Sounds more like a crap publicity stunt by a small number of people claiming more influence than they have.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/01/011706safBlood.htm