Jump to content

Just a thought

  • entries
    5
  • comments
    57
  • views
    2,851

Let's be fair.....

Kitt

640 views

I was going to try and say all this as a response to MikeL's blog entry but it seems I have way to much to say for that.

 

Mike is right in that the 5 things gay's cannot do need to be fixed, but I don't see them all as "gay" issues. They strike me more as human rights issues and at least three of them hit the "straight" community just as hard.

 

Donating blood - I can understand why they banned it in '85. Back then they barely knew what HIV was. It was a logical step to reduce the possibility of transmission. With new testing methods is it still necessary? Well - I would rather modify the ban for a bit before completely lifting it. Testing history showing a potential donor clean before donation ( and I think that should go for all donors - not just gay ones) could be a place to start. A simple card provided after routine blood work would be easy to present at the time of donation. The government sees fit to supplement the incomes of hundreds of thousands of people who should not be on public assistance, I feel this is something they SHOULD be supplementing. When you go for regular blood work tell them you are a blood donor so the extra tests can be done on the governments dime. Something i would not mind my tax dollars going towards.

 

They should also allow directed blood donations. If I can donate and store my own blood against a surgical procedure that is pending for religious reasons, why cant similar arrangements be made if my gay neighbor with the same blood type wants to help me out in my time of need? I would rather get blood from him, a man i know and trust than some stranger that could have slipped thru the testing cracks.

 

Eventually blood supply monitoring will prove itself reliable enough to lift the ban, and none of these actions will be necessary. But till then its better to be safe than sorry, and ALL donations should be carefully screened.

 

Adoption should be an option to ANY person with the love and the means to raise a child. A single parent family that is a loving family is much better than foster care. Sexuality certianly adds to the obsticles when it should not, but there are other hurdles that need to be cleared as well.

 

Medical decisions are something EVERYONE should make preparations for. When my mother was ill and became unable to make her own decisions, a decline that occurred very rapidly, I legally could not make decisions for her - that should have fallen to dad. He however was unable to do so do to his own medical problems after a stroke. Had my parents thought ahead and arranged a medical power of attorney before things became so screwed up I would not have needed a small army of lawyers in addition to the army of doctors to take care of them. My point here is again - the system needs fixing, it isn't just gay couples affected, and in the interim a lot of planning needs be done to prevent landing in an impossible situation.

 

Seek legal recourse for unjust dismissal? Sorry - while there may be no laws specifically banning dismissal on sexuality there is always a way to find legal recourse. If some idiot can sue McDonnalds because her hot coffee was hot then unjust dismissal is fair game with or without specific laws. You just need the right attorney and I would suggest the ACLU to help with that if you are unsure of where to turn.

 

The scouting issue - well that whole situation is just wrong and I will gladly lend my voice in hopes that nonsense like that can be eradicated!

  • Like 2


5 Comments


Recommended Comments

"while there may be no laws specifically banning dismissal on sexuality there is always a way to find legal recourse"

 

The benefit of having a specific law banning discrimination - just like anti-racial law - is to make the position absolutely clear. You won't stop it altogether but managers and business owners know for sure their butts will be on the line if they're homophobic. So that's one good reason.

 

Another good reason is it reduces the scope for lawyers to rack up huge fees on researching the basis for a claim by confining the vultures to routine stuff like presenting evidence and the claim size. And in some cases it even enables people to do it themselves via a tribunal.

Share this comment


Link to comment

It was some years ago that I was barred from donating blood at the Red Cross because I was being actively treated for cancer.  Prior to that, I had donated over three gallons of whole blood and had donated platelets several times.

 

I was under the impression that the local Red Cross blood bank tested all donors for HIV among other diseases while I was still donating.  I certainly had to sign a consent form permitting that and permitting them to notify me of any adverse results of the testing.

 

Anyone else have a similar experience?

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

"while there may be no laws specifically banning dismissal on sexuality there is always a way to find legal recourse"

 

The benefit of having a specific law banning discrimination - just like anti-racial law - is to make the position absolutely clear. You won't stop it altogether but managers and business owners know for sure their butts will be on the line if they're homophobic. So that's one good reason.

 

Another good reason is it reduces the scope for lawyers to rack up huge fees on researching the basis for a claim by confining the vultures to routine stuff like presenting evidence and the claim size. And in some cases it even enables people to do it themselves via a tribunal.

I am not saying - or implying - that a specific law was not needed or would not be advantageous, simply that it's not impossible to deal with the situation just because legislation does not yet exist.

Share this comment


Link to comment

 

I was under the impression that the local Red Cross blood bank tested all donors for HIV among other diseases while I was still donating.  I certainly had to sign a consent form permitting that and permitting them to notify me of any adverse results of the testing.

 

Yes they do - says so on their website.

 

It also says "HIV antibodies may take a few weeks to develop after infection with the virus". In the EU gay donors can give blood if more than 12 months since they last had gay sex which seems more sensible than a lifetime ban.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I gave blood for years, but then I got banned, because I lived in England in 1982 and ate beef.

I'm also on the bone marrow donor list. I asked if I was banned from that too. The doctor looked at me and said: "If you're a compatible donor for someone who needs a transplant, we not going to worry about the miniscule risk of you having been exposed to Mad Cow Disease."

Comforting to know...

but even in Europe we have cases of things being transmitted via blood donation or transplants. Rare, but they do happen no matter how carefully you screen. Although, I've not heard of any HIV transmission after they introduced screening and the extended questionnaire.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Our Privacy Policy can be found here. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..