#bloodonation

[digimasterssolutions]

World Blood Donar day

On World Blood Donor Day, remember that your gift of blood can save lives.❤️💉 One pint is all it takes to offer someone a new lease on life. Step up and be a hero – donate blood and make a world of difference!🌟

[oabcafe-blog]

blood banks

blood donation is the most important thing in our daily life if a patient should require the blood then the blood donors contact through this website and this website also runs the services from blood banks then blood recipient save their life this website helps to save many people with our services

[stevepaulmyers]

The spirit of giving, do something amazing today #bloodonation #nhs #dosomethingamazing #donateblood (at Hadrian Leisure Centre) https://www.instagram.com/p/BrvGOUkBwa4/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=12kgtwocvoik2

[bloodforothers]

Repost from @poetrarbayu Donor Darah Aferesis 🆎... #bloodonation #bloodonationismylifestyle #bloodforothers #bfojogja #bloodforlife #givebloodgivelife #givebloodsavelives #donordarah #aferesis #ab

[projectboldblood-blog-blog]

Letter

To Whom It May Concern,

   On February 18, 2015, my high school welcomed Life Source (based in Chicago) to hold a blood drive in the main gym. Our school marketed the drive as an opportunity to help save a life during the length of a gym period and naturally many students were eager to help. Life Source made it clear, in an informative session several weeks before the event, that students younger than 16, those who weighed less than 110 pounds, and those who did not have sufficient iron levels would not be allowed to donate blood—none of these applied to me as I exercise 6 days a week and eat healthy meals. I began the process by waiting over an hour to finally meet with a worker who took my blood pressure and a sample of my blood to measure my iron levels. The nurse let me know that I had excellent vital signs and healthy iron levels, however, I ended the process being told that while everything about me was healthy I would not be allowed to donate blood because I am gay. That day I walked back to class embarrassed and for the first time in my life I felt like a second-class citizen. I could not even muster the courage to tell people the truth about why I was disqualified and resorted to saying I had “bad iron levels” because I wasn’t comfortable telling the truth. However, after a few hours of feeling helpless I decided to be proactive and I began to research the history and logic behind the ban on blood donations by gay men. I discovered that many aspects of the policy are not airtight and the ban may be outright discrimination stemming from 1990s panic over the AIDS crisis. I live and go to school in the Illinois 6th District and I ask that as my congressman you look into legislature concerning discrimination in blood donation. I also ask that you look into the procedure that blood bank organizations use in regards to gay men.

   According to Life Source’s website, those who have engaged in “high-risk behavior” or had contact with someone at risk for HIV are disqualified from donating. The rule is the result of an FDA policy enacted in 1992 that aimed to prevent the intravenous transmission of HIV. At the time, the policy was a broad effort to minimize the risk of HIV infected blood and in a way logical because HIV transmission rates were at an all time high. However, the policy is outdated and poorly constructed as it does not consider several important factors.

   First, the policy does not take into account the number of sexual partners a man has had or whether protection was used. It is without dispute that a gay man who had had sexual relations with numerous men, unprotected, in the previous year would be considered to be more at risk for HIV than a heterosexual donor. However, a man could have had only one sexual partner and used protection with that one partner. The policy is homophobic. A straight person is not disqualified for having multiple sexual partners or failing to use protection, but a gay man is disqualified even if he has held only one partner and used protection with that one partner because, according to the FDA policy, all gay men are “deferred” from donating blood and are to be registered as “deferrals” in that organization’s records so they cannot donate blood in the future. The FDA claims that the deferral is a form of risk management, however, when “risk management” excludes over 4,000,000 people it is possible that it is actually a fallacy descended from 1990s homophobia.

   Second, the policy is in place to prevent HIV infection, but it does not account for the fact that one does not have to be a homosexual man to contract HIV and for the fact that one does not have to admit he is homosexual. The CDC reports, “In 2010, African American women accounted for 6,100 (29%) of the estimated new HIV infections among all adult and adolescent African Americans. This number represents a decrease of 21% since 2008. Most new HIV infections among African American women (87%; 5,300) are attributed to heterosexual contact,” (Centers). This is largely the result of homosexual interaction, as many black men may hold homosexual relationships in addition to heterosexual relationships  and make risky sexual decisions, transmitting the disease from man to woman. This is largely the result of shame and fear of ridicule, exactly the same reason the policy is defunct. The policy does not account for lying. To any question asked, the donor could lie. A gay man does not have to admit he is gay. However, many choose to be honest and are unfairly denied. The FDA should recognize that if the man is willing to admit he is a sexually active homosexual, he is likely willing to speak truthfully about his sex life. The survey should ask, “Have you had sexual contact with another male?” and if the answer is yes, there should be follow-up questions not an automatic deferral. If gay men know they are disqualified they can simply lie, which is why the single question is poorly constructed. The two most important questions should be, “Did you use protection/ have you had multiple sexual partners?” If the answer to the follow up question is deemed high-risk, then the man should be deferred. He should not be deferred for simply being a sexually active gay man. That is not a disease; that is a sexual preference.

   This flaw in logic is even greater in a high school setting. There are roughly 1200 students at my high school and assuming roughly half, or 600, are men, then roughly 23 are gay. Considering that around 35% of the student body is of age to donate blood then roughly 8 gay men could have donated, including me. My point is that I am the only one who has come forward to admit I was deferred for telling the truth. This could mean the others chose not to donate or chose not to come forward about being deferred, but, it could also mean they lied. High school is a sensitive time and many gay teens fear outlash from their peers. When you are sitting in a tiny cubicle right next to another student answering sensitive questions about your sexuality, do you really feel secure? Should the FDA actually expect a teenager to admit he is gay to a stranger and possibly to the ridicule of his whole school if the person next to him hears. Most kids would not be as bold as I was. I answered the question because I have nothing to hide, I am HIV negative, and I have only made safe sexual decision with a monogamous partner. Yet, I am the one punished for being honest over a teen who may be promiscuous but to insecure to admit he is gay to a stranger. The policy is poorly constructed. The policy also does not consider its audience. Adults who donate blood do so to give back to the community and could generally be characterized as responsible upstanding members of society. If a grown man is thoughtful enough to donate blood on his own time, is it not likely he is thoughtful enough to get tested. Gay men who want to donate blood are not allowed because a policy is constructed on the idea that being gay is a behavior, or lifestyle. It is not. Being gay is simply being attracted to men--not being promiscuous or deviant-- the decisions you make sexually have nothing to do with your sexual orientation.

   Finally, the policy is backed by an overly broad concern.The FDA reports that all blood is tested for HIV; however, 1 in 2,000,000 tests will fail. What this means is that if a blood sample contained Human Immunodeficiency Virus, there is a 1 in 2,000,000 chance it would somehow enter the collection of blood. These are not likely odds. The amount of blood that would be collected if gay men were allowed to donate, assuming they have made safe sexual decisions (i.e. used protection and acted non-promiscuously) is massive. To put it in numbers, there are 115,353,739 American men, according to the 2010 US census. If roughly 3.8% of men are gay according to the Williams Institute of the University of California Los Angeles School of Law, then 4,383,442  men are gay. Every three seconds someone needs blood. If each of those men donated a pint of blood, around 13.9% of the need would be met. Donation age eligibility would obviously lessen this number as you must be 16 to donate with a parent’s signature; however, it would still be a sizable population. Sadly, according to the FDA not a single gay man can donate blood because they are gay. It is true, however, that with a recent update, those who have abstained from sex for at least a year are allowed to donate blood. The obvious issue with the update is that though that is a step in the right direction, adult men are sexual creatures and cannot be expected to abstain from engaging in a normal human behavior, having sex, for a year simply to donate a pint of blood.

   The ban on blood donation of gay men is intrinsically discriminatory and unnecessary. Criteria for eligibility should be based on sexual history, not preference. A heterosexual man who has had several unprotected sexual partners is more at risk than a gay man who has used protection with one. The questionnaire should be based on the riskiness of decisions, not the gender of your “decision”.

  This year I made the decision to enroll in AP Government and as a result I have begun to pay attention to politics and government and the way it affects my life. The course, in addition to my teacher Mrs. McGann, educates students about the power their voice can have on government. The blood drive bothered me in two ways and I hope that as my representative and my school’s representative you can change things. My first complaint is that the ban on gay men from donating blood is wrong and that it is harmful. I ask that you please look into the legality of discriminating people based on sexual preference in the case of blood donation. My second complaint is that if the blood ban is truly necessary, why not make that clear from the start? I had to waste at least 90 minutes of my school day only to be told I was ineligible. I missed class and as a student who takes my academics very seriously, I do not consider this acceptable. It would not have been difficult for Life Source to clearly denote gay men as deferred donors, but they did not, and consequently, I went through the process of being made to feel like I was somehow sick, or unworthy, in my own school, where I hope you agree I should feel most secure. I hope that you can look into the manner in which local organizations handle this so no one has to experience what I went through.

Thank You

Michael Thompson

[rahmihayati]

Yeay akhirnya bisa donor darah :D #bloodonation #givingblood