Blood. Everyday thousands of Canadians need to receive blood for one reason or another. Everyday people flock to blood banks to donate it. Yet, also everyday, the blood supply is insufficient to meet the demands of those in need. Often, I receive telephone calls from representatives of Blood Services stating that they need my blood type and that it would be greatly appreciated if I could donate today. This phone call is polite yet urgent.
The new ad campaign for Canadian Blood Services says, "Blood. It’s in you to give." It makes you feel kind of guilty -- it is in everyone to give. An act of kindness and goodwill to all people, because one day it may be you who needs the blood. So why are so many perfectly healthy males with perfectly healthy blood turned away from blood banks? The answer is simply because these men choose to have intimate relationships with other men. Meanwhile, somewhere, someone is in a hospital waiting for this perfectly healthy, untainted blood and may die because they cannot get it.
In the early 1980's a "new" deadly virus became a great concern to the public health system and, consequently, to the Canadian Red Cross. The possibility of the HIV/AIDS epidemic spreading through the blood system prompted the Red Cross to set up a screening process. But it was already too late for some recipients of tainted blood. In the absence of an effective test to screen out HIV infected donations, a system of screening out ‘high-risk’ donors was put into effect. Included in this group were homosexual and bisexual men with multiple partners. Eventually, two statements on the pre-donation screening sheet were born. They were: "If you are a man who has had sex with a man even once since 1977" and "If you are a woman who has had sex with a man who has had sex with a man even once since 1977." Ticking "Yes" in the block next to these questions would automatically disqualify you from giving blood.
The HIV scare that began in the early 1980's quickly became known as "the gay man’s disease" and soon fuelled people's homophobic attitudes. Being gay became equated with having AIDS. This was particularly apparent in the early days of AIDS when the illness was known as GRIDS or "Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome", due to its prevalence in gay communities. It is speculated that this initially high rate of AIDS in gay communities may have been due to the lack of knowledge about HIV/AIDS during that time frame & thus a corresponding lack of educational information. Also significant is the fact that gay men were not using condoms. Not fearing pregnancy, & not being aware of this new disease, gay men were not practicing what is now known as safe sex. While the straight community were often protecting themselves against the horrid plague of pregnancies, they were also protecting themselves against possible HIV infection.
Fortunately, since these times, HIV/AIDS education has spread throughout most all of the Western Hemisphere. As teens, we are warned of the risks of STIs (Sexually Transmitted Infections) and HIV. People have become more open about the use of condoms and, as my mother did for me (prior to my coming out), many parents are providing condoms to their children so they may not have to risk the embarrassment of buying them at the local drug store.
The message now is that everyone can get HIV. In fact, statistics received from the Newfoundland and Labrador AIDS committee, reveal that between 1991 and present, more people had received HIV through heterosexual activity alone than through homosexual activity alone. Everyone must be more careful.
So, now we turn our attention back to the Canadian Red Cross which, during this period of education and enlightenment, had been replaced by Canadian Blood Services. This was an exciting time for many people. With the move into the 21st century, many people hoped that the homophobic attitudes so evident in the1980's questionnaire would be gone. It was a wonderful opportunity for CBS to change discriminatory practices toward gay men. However, when nothing did change, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) began an awareness campaign to address some of these issues.
In an interview with a student of Memorial University of Newfoundland who was involved with this campaign (who wishes to remain anonymous), some of the goals of the CFS were discussed. The main goal was to fight myths and discrimination that were found in much of the screening process. The CFS felt it was important to screen out high risk behaviors -- not entire groups of people. The statement in the screening process states that if you engage in male homosexual sex, you are at risk for HIV. There are many different sexual activities that constitute "having sex", but not all are high-risk. One high-risk activity is unprotected anal sex. The screening process assumes that all homosexual males have unprotected anal sex. But, not all gay men participate in this activity -- nor is it an exclusively gay activity. Some, maybe many heterosexuals have unprotected anal sex. So, why are heterosexual couples, according to this assumption, safe from contracting HIV while gay men are not? Unprotected vaginal sex is also a high-risk activity, yet it appears that it is not screened as such. Therefore, it appears that heterosexuals can have as much unprotected sex as they like and still be able to give blood, while a monogamous gay male couple can't -- even if they have protected sex consistently and have tested negative for HIV.
There are also two other myths the CFS wants to dispel. First, accepting money for sex is not a high-risk activity while unprotected sex is. Second, using drugs is not a high-risk activity but sharing needles is.
In light of the readily accessible information presented in this article, why does the Canadian Blood Services appear to be ignoring the research? With the installment of HIV/AIDS screening for all donations, why are they still interviewing potential donors? Some may say that this will "help" screen out tainted blood. But why are such obviously discriminatory statements used? Why are they posing questions that are based on heterosexist assumptions? We know that HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease and that HIV/AIDS does not discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, class, or race. You would think that an agency whose business is blood would also know this.