Seems times have not changed since the following discussion happened in the mailing list.... Pasting it to refresh the minds...
Preyas.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Sumit, Billy, Aryan and others I had a similar experience in being disallowed from donating blood at a blood donation camp a few months back held at my institute. I am openly gay and a PhD student in evolutionary biology at the National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore. I had to, before donating blood, sign a consent form that also doubles as a screening form of sorts (the "filter"). The form required people engaged in "homosexual sex" over the past six months to refrain from donating blood, in addition to people who had indulged in "unprotected casual sex". I found this annoying and discriminatory. I approached the doctor in charge of the camp, told her that I was gay and queried her the reasons for preventing homosexual men from donating blood. She could not handle the fact that she was speaking to an openly gay person and asked a nurse to talk to me. As I waited for the nurse to finish her work on another donor, I tried to talk to the doctor but she refused to even acknowledge my presence! I was absolutely outraged but managed to stay calm. The nurse also had a tough time in talking to me. She asked me if I had "done all these things", "homosex" for the past six months and tried to explain high-risk categories, donor deferral, the window period and so on. She even thanked me for being frank about it and that it had saved them (the blood bank) some trouble!! I was exasperated at the lack of sensitivity, awareness and training on part of both the doctor and the nurse in as much as they could not handle the situation at all. The discrimination in the consent form was part of the issue of not being allowed to donate blood. I had no intention to disturb the camp's activities and so complained to the managing trustee and director of the blood bank, also a doctor, through a mutual acquaintance. I have been out to everyone at work (and elsewhere), and many people who heard of the incident later spoke to me in support and expressed their outrage, or sober disagreement with the discriminatory act. The doctor-trustee e-mailed me apologizing for the incident and we arranged to meet and discuss the incident, reasons for donor deferral and possibilities, if any, in terms of remedial measures. She was very understanding and agreed that the wording in the consent form was discriminatory. She expressed her surprise that it had escaped their attention that the staff were not trained to handle queers and other sexual minorities. This was because, she claimed, they had never faced a situation where someone who identified him/herself as queer had approached them questioning their actions. The lack of policy and training was in some ways, she accepted, was a lack of anticipation or belief of such incidents having to occur despite being aware and concerned of gay rights. We discussed the incident in detail and she informed me that the doctor in question was a new recruit who had previously been in government blood banks where these issues are mostly given an eyewash. She informed me that the doctor was reprimanded and instructed on handling gay donors in order she may face similar situations in future with understanding, concern and with respect to the dignity of the donor (if it were possible!). On donor deferral, she informed me that although they test every donated sample, the sensitivity of the available tests during the window period (for HIV) prevented them from using samples from groups identified as "high risk", including homosexuals. She drew attention to statistics available for America and Europe (not India) that point to a drastic cut, over a decade, in the number of contaminated samples after consent forms were modified to identify high risk persons. I can appreciate their point on the sensitivity of the tests, which is scientific, but is it safe to assume that the number of contaminated samples dropped after modified consent forms were introduced? I do not have access to these studies, but couldn't help wonder if other reasons such as increased condom usage etc and increased awareness among the "high-risk" communities be a reason for the drop? I am not sure if comparable numbers of donors from the "high-risk" communities existed over the decade to give credence to the dropping graph. With these reasonable arguments in mind, I wondered if we could do something practical to change things at the blood bank. The blood bank in question is one of the largest in Bangalore and as the doctor informed me, with the responsibility to advise the Karnataka government in drafting guidelines on blood donation and blood bank policy. She outlined the steps that she would undertake as the managing trustee of the blood bank to change things. 1. All discriminatory wording in the consent form would be dropped and the form would be suitably modified to sound "neutral". Instead of "homosexual sex", and "unprotected causal sex" would be "unprotected vaginal, oral, anal sex" that would encompass everything. I am not sure when the next set of consent forms would be printed, but the doctor assured me then that it would be done at the earliest. She promised to recommend in her next report to the government to make this mandatory for all blood banks in Karnataka. That might take a while, but I live in hope that it just might happen. 2. All the personnel in the blood bank, particularly those involved in blood donation camps, would be provided training in attending with greater sensitivity to donors who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or transsexual. This could also form a part of her recommendations, although I do not recall her promise anything. The doctor was sensitive and responsive to the rights of gay, lesbian and transsexual people and I appreciate her attempts, or promises thereof, to rectify matters. In the days after the incident, I have been involved with academic activities and research at my institute and have not been able to follow up on the blood bank and its promised policy changes. I shall do that in a few days and let everyone know the status of things. While I completely understand the outrage experienced by Sumit and perhaps several others, this incident has raised my hopes that practical good can be done in some cases, and future course can potentially influenced to our benefit if emotive issues of gay rights are molded suitably with practical concerns of the doctors. with warm wishes and regards Thejaswi Shivanand On 15/06/07, Aryakrishnan Ramakrishnan < aryakrishna...@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear Billy Stewart, There is no other option than disagreeing with you. I remember a campus debate on sex work 3 years ago, where one of the participants raised an idea to reduce HIV Risk. He was proposing that the sex workers should be 'branded'. The logic was to implement HIV 'education' and 'measures' on them. Very good intention! <Filtering out people who had risky sexual behaviour> The problem is with this filtering out. What criterias are used for this 'filtering out?'. I see it as discrimination, not as a 'public health ' strategy. I am gay, but donot identify myself with a 'highrisk behaviour' community. If I am, then majority of my straight friends also have this 'High risk sexual behaviour'. The problem with the public health language is that many times it is discriminatory. And it is for us to correct it. If I am taking your logic of 'public good', then not only the sex worker or MSM, but their clients also should be filtered. But how is this possible? MSM and sex workers are easy categories to be used for this purpose. I donot see any other reason in this. In solidairty (sharing the hurt and insult Sumit experienced) Aryan William Stewart <liberto...@yahoo.com> wrote: Bharat and Sumit Thanks – these are useful postings. It does seem that there is some debatable public health practice going on here with regard to blood donation which may be discriminatory in intention and is certainly discriminatory in impact. First off though I think it is important that we distinguish between public health strategies and discrimination. I don't believe it is discriminatory to acknowledge the higher levels of exposure to HIV that are likely for people with certain behaviours - and that include men having sex with men. I don't think we would be doing our community any favours not to acknowledge this. Nor, given the limitations of current testing technologies, is it wrong for a blood programme to try to implement some filters for people do have a higher risk of having been exposed to HIV or other blood borne infections. The question remains - what it the most appropriate means of doing so? Given advances in testing, any uncertainty about the test (because of the window period) only relates to people who may have been exposed in the recent weeks or months. To implement a total ban on men who have had sex with men in their lifetimes is a very extreme criteria – and perpetuates the stigmatising idea that it is the membership of the population group rather than the behaviour which is at the root of HIV risk. Some organisations in the US and European countries that also have such blanket restrictions have recommended that filtering out people who have had risky sexual behaviour in the past year only would be an appropriate compromise between the need to recruit lower risk blood donors and the need not to cut out and stigmatise a large population of willing donors. Perhaps this is something that could be put to the clinic concerned, and NACO, as NACP3 begins. Billy Stewart DFID India --- bharat venkat <bven...@stanford.edu> wrote: > I'm not sure how much this ban is a product of NACO > and how much it relates > to the international community. In the United > States, this same group of > people is disallowed from donating blood, despite > the fact that all of the > major blood banks feel that this particular > stipulation should be amended. > Why? The federal government still maintains the > ban, giving the same > reasons regarding the high percentage of positive > people in the queer > community compared to other groups (which very well > may not be true) and > the imperfectness of the HIV-test (as all donated > blood is tested). > > Many other countries are starting to remove this > ban, and until the > announcement from the federal government, I thought > the U.S. would as well. > I can't help but feel that there are political > motivations behind some of > this - for example, if giving blood is a way in > which to demonstrate civic > responsibility, queer people have this avenue taken > away. It makes it that > much easier to demonize queer people as antisocial > elements. > > I was also interested to note that the way the blood > ban is formulated seems > to match up exactly with how it's worded in the > United States. Based on my > previous research, I would suspect that the blood > ban might have something > to do with the large amounts of funding that NACO > receives from the United > States government - U.S. AIDS money always has > strings attached. > > This is my first time posting, so I hope it's > useful. > > -Bharat > > On 6/13/07, sumit baudh <sba...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > To > > > > > > > > LGBT India, and Gay Delhi > > > > > > > > I went to the Apollo hospital blood bank yesterday > to donate blood for a > > friend. > > > > > > > > While going through an initial check-up I noticed > a poster titled, "You > > Cannot Donate Blood If..". The poster gave a list, > at the top of which was > > "if you are a man who has had sex with another man > since 1977 even once". > > Next on the list was, "if you are a partner of any > such man". The list went > > on to similarly disqualify sex workers. It listed, > "if you have engaged in > > sex work since 1977 even once", the next item, "if > you are a partner of any > > such sex worker". > > > > > > > > I found it mildly amusing initially. But as I > walked out I started feeling > > uneasy. I wondered if I should disclose that I was > one such man, listed at > > the very top of their poster. I wondered if that > would keep them from > > accepting my blood. I wondered if that would then > adversely affect my > > friend's need. I was confused. I felt angry and > humiliated. > > > > > > > > I told my friend, and asked her if she'd still > like me to donate blood. > > She laughed it away, and gave me light push > towards the blood donation > > section. > > > > > > > > I lay on the stretcher, put my arm out for the > needle to pierce my vein, > > feeling extremely uneasy. Blood started to trickle > into the tube, and I kept > > thinking about that poster. > > > > > > > > When I finished, I was shown to another section > where I was offered > > refreshments and a place to sit. I noticed a > Register on the coffee table. > > It was titled, Comments. I wrote in it, something > to the effect that I feel > > terribly hurt that the bank does not consider my > blood good enough, why? I > > signed my name, identifying myself as queer /gay. > > > > > > > > As I walked into the lobby, I requested to speak > with the head of the > > blood bank. I was shown into the room of Dr. R. N. > Makroo. I asked him about > > the poster and he told me about high risk groups, > window period, etc. We had > > a conversation for about 10-15 minutes, in the > presence of his colleague and > > my friend. I want to refer only one point from it. > Dr. Makroo said that the > > poster was an outcome of the findings of the > National Aids Control > > Organisation (NACO). At the end of our > conversation he assured me he would > > take up the issue with various boards and agencies > of which he was a member. > > > > > > > > It was perhaps useful to have that conversation > with Dr. Makroo, but > > perhaps it wasn't. Perhaps this, perhaps that. I > am not sure. > > > > > > > > But I am absolutely sure that I feel deeply hurt > and insulted. > > > > > > > > I would like to take up this issue at a larger > level. Any ideas? > > > > > > > > Sumit Baudh > > New Delhi > > > > --------------------------------- > > Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with > the added security of > > spyware protection. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > __________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ --------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- "Je pense, donc je suis" - Descartes ------------------------------------ Email: modera...@gaybombay.in Web Sites: www.gaybombay.in www.gaybombay.info www.gayindia.org E Groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gay_bombay http://groups.google.com/group/Gaybombay GB Radio www.gaybombay.in/gbradio Gaybombay breaking news and annoucements http://labs.google.co.in/smschannels/subscribe/Gaybombay Emergency Helpline number 9820565885 Orkut: http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Community.aspx?cmm=22091955 Blogs: http://gaybombay.blogspot.com http://gaybombay.wordpress.com Twitter http://twitter.com/gaybombay Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gay_bombay/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gay_bombay/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:gay_bombay-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:gay_bombay-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: gay_bombay-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
