| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Africa Subsaharan | |
| SA gays in 'blood flood' protest | |
| 2006-01-13 | |
| 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. He says the SANBS has already admitted that it uses state-of the art equipment that ensures rigorous screening of donated blood, and therefore they should accept the blood from men who sleep with other men and subject it to the tests.
But the SANBS has described the Alliance campaign as It is not clear what will happen to blood donated on Friday, as the SANBS will be unable to tell which blood came from Alliance members who lied. Ms Exall says though they do have the best testing systems in place, no machine in the world can detect the HI virus during the "window period" that follows the transmission of HIV. It is not the first time that the SANBS has been hit by controversy. Last year it was forced to change its screening procedures when it was revealed that they destroyed blood donated by black people, because it claimed they were at a high risk of HIV infection. It emerged that President Thabo Mbeki's blood was destroyed because he was black and because his doctor had refused to complete the personal history questionnaire used to screen donors. Mr Mbeki donated blood as part of a publicity campaign to persuade people to donate blood. | |
| Posted by:Creck Ulagum6581 |
| #7 Alliance spokesman Juan Uys describes the question as "humiliating, offensive and an insult to gay men". He says all blood should be treated equally. Yet, it is not humiliating or offensive to contract AIDS because some thin-skinned moron decides that lack of disclosure should take priority over protecting the purity of transfusion supplies? The article mentioned the most critical "window" aspect of tainted blood in which the virus has not detectably expressed itself. However, there are many other risks such as accidental needle sticks by blood bank workers and other unanticipated vectors which represent avenues of death for even more innocent people. What Juan Uys basically wants is for innocent people to die so that others who engage in exceptionally dangerous sexual practices can avoid any niggling questions about the wisdom thereof. Between crap like this, the supposedly curative powers of having sex with a young virgin female and the incredible hypocrisy of infidelitous husbands having sex with whores while away from home - who then come back, infect their faithful wives and throw them on the street because they are infected. All of this has brought me to the point where I await a significant meltdown of the entire sub-Saharan African continent. With HIV infection rates surpassing 50% in some regions, there is a massive die-off that has yet to occur. While I would not advocate withholding a functional vaccine, were one invented, if over half of the male population dies quite soon, I will regard it as being for the better. The slaughter, abuse, corruption and general tyranny that are pandemic in Africa make me wish it could somehow be wiped clean and make a new start. AIDS may end up doing that. However brutal my opinion may seem, it will finally put a stop to some of the most hideous abuses on earth. As you can see, idiots like Juan Uys are merely speeding my solution on its way. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-01-13 22:16 |
| #6 If a single person gets HIV from a blood transfusion, I hope SANBS just sues the piss out of this Gay and Lesbian Alliance, collectively and individually. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-13 17:51 |
| #5 Mr. Uys, who's probably also infected, should have his death hastened, publicly and brutally, as should any other knowingly-HIV blood donors. By donating, you are basically killing someone, their partners, possibly family members. ...just slowly |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-13 16:52 |
| #4 Why don't we reserve all of that blood and only give it to other gays who claim that we shouldn't have a problem with this? |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-13 16:50 |
| #3 er, sorry. |
| Posted by: BH 2006-01-13 15:59 |
| #2 Alliance spokesman Juan Uys describes the question as "humiliating, offensive and an insult to gay men". He says all blood should be treated equally. "And therefore people with a need for blood transfusions must be placed in danger because it is, and forever shall be, all about MEEEEEEEEEE." |
| Posted by: BH 2006-01-13 15:59 |
| #1 Alliance spokesman Juan Uys describes the question as "humiliating, offensive and an insult to gay men". He says all blood should be treated equally. "And therefore people with a need for blood transfusions must be placed in danger because it is, and forever shall be, all about MEEEEEEEEEE." |
| Posted by: BH 2006-01-13 15:59 |