Top Stories -   

1
Canadian Blood Services Chief Executive Officer Graham Sher speaks during a news conference in Ottawa, Thursday, Sept. 9, 2010. (Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS)  Blood Canadian Blood Services Chief Executive Officer Graham Sher speaks during a news conference in Ottawa, Thursday, Sept. 9, 2010. (Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Blood Services allowed to ban gay men's donations

Viewer

CTV News Video

Canada AM: Experts discuss the decision
A lawyer for the Canadian AIDS Society and the CEO for Canadian Blood Services debate the decision by an Ontario court which ruled the Services is legally allowed to ban men who have sex with other men from giving blood.
CTV National News: Roger Smith on the ban
An Ontario superior court ruled that Canadian Blood Services can continue to reject blood donations from gay men. The decision has infuriated gay rights groups, who say the ruling is discriminatory.
CTV Calgary: Kevin Green on the court ruling
An Ontario court sides with Canadian Blood Services and its policy about blood donation from gay men.
CTV News Channel: Doug Elliot, CAS
The lawyer representing the Canadian AIDS Society says he is disappointed with the outcome but is not surprised by the ruling that allows Canadian Blood Services to ban gay men from donating blood.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (117) Facebook   

Canadian Blood Services Chief Executive Officer Graham Sher speaks during a news conference in Ottawa, Thursday, Sept. 9, 2010. (Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS)  Blood Canadian Blood Services Chief Executive Officer Graham Sher speaks during a news conference in Ottawa, Thursday, Sept. 9, 2010. (Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Photos

Canadian Blood Services Chief Executive Officer Graham Sher speaks during a news conference in Ottawa, Thursday, Sept. 9, 2010. (Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

View Larger Image

Date: Thu. Sep. 9 2010 9:59 PM ET

Canadian Blood Services is legally allowed to ban men who have sex with men from donating blood, an Ontario court has found. Gay rights groups are furious with the decision.

In a ruling Thursday, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed a constitutional challenge from a man who tried to fight the policy. The court decided that the law does not give someone the right to donate blood. It also noted that the Charter of Rights does not apply to the blood agency's policies, because it is not a government entity.

The ruling stems from a case that began with Canadian Blood Services suing a gay man named Kyle Freeman, who lied about his sexual status when he donated blood several times between 1990 and 2002. Once the agency learned that Freeman had lied on his questionnaires, they sued.

Freeman argued he lied because the policy banning gay men from donating wasn't scientifically justified and violated his rights. He launched a counterclaim under the Charter.

But on Thursday, the court dismissed the challenge, finding Freeman liable for $10,000 for negligent misrepresentation.

The judge in the case, Justice Catherine Aitken, did note in her written decision that gay and bisexual men may feel "a loss of dignity, a feeling of marginalization, a sense of disappointment, and a sense of injustice" when denied the opportunity to give blood.

But she ruled that the impact of that injustice is not "in the same league" as a blood recipient being asked to accept lower safety standards.

Canadian Blood Services chief Graham Sher said "we are reassured that the court has confirmed that our policy, with respect to men who have sex with men, is not discriminatory."

He added: "blood donation is not a right, it's a privilege we try to extend to as many Canadians as possible."

Anger over ruling

Egale Canada spokesperson Helen Kennedy expressed disappointment with the decision, saying, "The negative consequences this ruling has on Charter rights are enormous."

Monique Doolittle-Romas, the executive director of the Canadian AIDS Society (CAS), says it's "disturbing" that the court framed the case as a "contest" between safety and gay rights.

CAS Board Vice-Chair Jeffrey Keller added in a statement: "In the end, this simply means that groups, such as CAS, [Canadian Federation of Students] and Egale, will continue to apply pressure until CBS relents and changes its outdated policy. It's a divisive policy that turns away many young adults who are dissatisfied with it, and in the process, curtails Canada's blood supply."

"We will keep fighting for change that will produce an improved screening question that respects both the safety of the blood supply and human rights."

Canadian Blood Services requires prospective blood donors to complete questionnaires ahead of their donation about their medical history and potentially harmful behaviour.

Intravenous drug users, people who may have been exposed to Creutzfeld-Jakob disease (mad cow disease), people who have exchanged money for sex or drugs are all permanently banned. Currently, men who had sex with men from 1977 onwards (the year estimated as the start of the AIDS epidemic) also face "indefinite deferrals" from donations.

Earlier this year, two doctors wrote in an article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal that Canada's ban on donations from homosexual men is outdated and unfair.

Dr. Mark Wainberg, the head of the McGill University AIDS Centre, and Dr. Norbert Gilmore, of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, argued that fears of the potential for HIV transmission are unfounded, because it is almost impossible for today's HIV tests to produce false results.

They also argued that a better policy would be to allow donations only from gay men in long-term, monogamous relationships. Those with multiple sex partners should still be barred, just as heterosexuals with multiple partners currently face one-year deferrals, they argued.

Josephine Sirna, who was infected with Hepatitis C after receiving a blood transfusion, said that keeping the public safe is paramount.

"They're taking that precaution to keep me and my health as safe as possible," she said Thursday.

Canada's blood donation system was tainted in the 1980s after infections became widespread because of Hepatitis C. The government paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in response to the scandal.

With a report from CTV's Roger Smith

Comments are now closed for this story

BABE
said

Wow not fair, if he's clean whats the problem?


Dawn
said

Thats great because all of us straight people produce better blood. BS. What difference does it make if it came from a healthy straight person, or if it came from a gay person. Still blood isn't it??
Hate to break it to all you haters....but just because some one is gay doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights as anyone else. FFS, prisioners have more rights.


Adam - Brampton
said

Some people do not seem to get it ! The judge said gays are at more risk then straight people. How the heck does she know that this is true ? Does she have god like powers ? Just look on Craig's List at all the straight men looking to hook up with other men. This is so wrong.


toto
said

Looks like Mr Kyle Freeman is disappointed because his blood cannot go to someone's blood. It is indeed disturbing how selfish some people are. I stand by Canadian Blood Services with the decision. No donors with STD or other diseases that can finish the lives of innocent people. Thank you judge Catherine Aitken. To Ann Carlin - Gay are human being, and I respect them, but infected blood is another story. Finally common sense rules.


Army Ant from Ottawa
said

I am a straight man, but have friends who are gay. I am also an officer in the Canadian Forces, where we have one of the most liberal policies in the world when it comes to respecting gay rights. Here is my point; there is a higher incidence of HIV in the gay population than in the greater society at large, this is not a discriminatory statement, it is just a statistic. I regularly give blood but was denied the opportunity to give blood for a period of one year when I returned from a tour in Afghanistan because of the risk that I could have contracted malaria or any number of diseases while serving there. I was in the same category as that of gay men, since our activity represented a risk to the blood supply should our blood donation be accepted. Canadian Blood Services pre-screens persons whose blood may pose a risk. Has everyone forgotten the tragedy that was the Tainted Blood Scandal in the ‘80s and ‘90s. Are our memories so short because sadly, most of those people have died of AIDS from tainted blood. This is not a gay rights issue it is an issue of public safety. The highest priority for Canadian Blood Services is screening and safety of the blood supply. Let us remember why it is Canadian Blood Services and not the Red Cross who collects our blood now.


MP
said

@vinnie
"It comes down to this: suppose you need blood...and just pretend for one second you have a choice:
1) Blood from a 75 yr old man who has been married to the same woman for 55 years or
2) Blood from a gay guy.

who's blood do you want?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again, you're judging LIFESTYLE, not the quality of the end product = blood / plasma.

As long as it's been tested and certified clean, does it really....REALLY matter what the LIFESTYLE of the donor is/was?


Michael
said

Let me get this straight: The guy lies about having syphilis because he didn't think it was fair that he couldn't give blood because he had syphilis?If this is supposed to be the poster child for the homosexual community, you've just shot yourself in the foot. Thankfully, the courts care about the right issues.


cancam
said

Of course gay rights activists would NEVER keep pushing and pushing and pushing would they. And of course we all know that all folks of a gay persuasion will always tell the truth .... ooops he didn't did he. Ah just an exception right? And the guys with Aids convicted of having unprotected sex with women or with other gay men are also stand up citizens who should be aloowed to donate right? Yet Intravenous drug users are now upstanding citizens in Vancouver and they aren't allowed to donate blood!!!! What is the world coming too! We all know that as long as your a minority you must have a case!


Cry Me A River!
said

FINALLY !! Common sense prevails over that stupid "charter of rights" which has been used by every special interest group to subvert the rights of the majority. It's about time we said "NO".


Jason
said

Kudos to the judge who is actually sensible and doesn't bend to political correctness.


Dustin
said

In reply to anyone here that thinks that barring gay men from donating blood is "common sense", EDUCATE yourself. I'm confused how anyone can think a man who is in a long term, monogamous relationship with another man is more dangerous then a heterosexual male with several partners. You are seriously delusional. This law is outdated and discriminatory. Should we ban black people from donated blood too? (As the rate of HIV/AIDS infection is higher). Seeing some of the people comments here disgusted me and scare me. It's shocking how misinformed and ignorant people can be.


lol
said

lol, I'm amazed at how many people are praising the decision for supposed "common sense". It's common sense to dwindle the available supply of blood by blanketly rejecting potential blood donors? You people are profoundly irrational to find that to be anything even resembling "common sense".


Travis
said

I understand that if someone lies on the form, they are guilty...but it shouldn't matter what their sexual preference is. Common sense is that we are equal, and we shouldn't discriminate anyone. As long as their blood is clean, it should be allowed to be donated. To Justice Aitken I ask: What if you needed blood, and the only person who could give it you was gay? Would you die, or take it?


adam
said

Of course this a moronic decision. It is, indeed, an issue that is critical to the needs of patients - i.e. why should we be discriminating against blindly when we are in need? What if organ donations were done in this way? HIV/AIDS would spread if the donor were infected. Something tells me that such a policy prohibiting organ donation from gay men would not have had the same result, and it is completely comparable to this horrible, irrational decision.


Tom
said

If Canadian Blood Services (CBS) does not actually screen their blood donations well enough to ensure that all potential recipients are safe, then it is unsafe for any recipient to receive an inadequately screened CBS blood donation.


Dan
said

It is scientific fact that black people have the highest rate of HIV/AIDS but you don't see a blanket ban on black people giving blood. It is pure hypocrisy and discrimination on the part of the court against homosexuals. The judge should be removed.


Robert
said

Again, they are ALLOWED to ban people based on what is considered a HIGH RISK lifestyle. (If you question that, have a chat with the staff working at the STD clinics). Heck, I can't even donate blood because I lived in Europe for two years on the eve of the Mad Cow crisis. Don't mess with Canadian Blood Services PERIOD. The last thing we want is something going wrong. It's bad enough when people lie to get in to donate blood. We don't want any cases of contaminated blood. Just don't mess with the system at all. If you're banned, you're banned. Live with it. I know I do.


Sudbury Donor
said

After reading through the comments, it seems pretty clear that not very many of you have donated blood before. I am a frequent donor of platelettes, so I have answered the CBS questionnaire many times.Most of you seem to think that there is only one question: "Are you a gay male?". This is not the case at all. There are dozens of questions aimed at weeding out all higher risk groups and it is up to the donor to answer truthfully so that CBS can properly gauge whether you are suitable or not. It is based on where you have lived, what kinds of medicine and medical treatments you have undergone, where you have travelled and yes, your sexual past. Donors are asked if you have had unprotected sex with someone who's sexual history you don't know, if you answer yes, you have to come back in six months. If you have ever taken illegal drugs or steroids with a needle, you can't donate ever. There are hundreds of ways to end up not being eligible to donate, so please, people, don't lose your minds over this. CBS does a wonderful job and don't get enough credit for what they do as is. If you are eligible, please get out there and donate!


BCDarr
said

This ruling doesn't go far enough.The safety of our blood supply is paramount. We also have to weed out women who've had sex with men since 1977 as well. And while we're at it, anyone who's BEEN a man since 1977. We simply can't be too safe.If that offends you, too bad. Our blood supply is far more important than your feelings, ... or common sense.Until then, however, we can console ourselves that our bigotry is warranted and supported by our courts. Yet again.


sarah
said

Your sense of self-righteousness ad indignation aside, this is a simple case of protecting the population from exposure to blood that, as a consequence of originating from a high risk group, is at a higher likelihood of carrying the HIV virus. This is what happens when statistics and reality collide with feelings and perceptions; AIDS may no longer be a 'gay disease' as some of you have said, but practicing homosexual men are a high-risk group. Public safety trumps indignation at a perceived social slight.


Gord
said

Good move and well within legality. The public deserves to be protected against any hint of HIV.


mark
said

I wonder if Kyle Freeman would object if I became an intravenous drug user, shared needles with other users,and then lied about it on my screening questionnaire if he received transfused units of my blood. You'd object? Quit discriminating against me based on my lifestyle and social status.


Dan
said

Ah Hannibal, as I read these posts I was waiting for the Anti-Harper post to show up and you didn't dissapoint. I am a Harper cronie, as you call it, and I don't necessarily agree with the ruling either. If medical science can say, without a doubt, that HIV tests are 100% accurate, then yes, why not accept blood from gay men. But if these tests are not reliable for HIV then I believe that we have to err on the side of caution. I know that gay rights groups are outraged but the fact remains that gay men are in a high risk group. Yes HIV has spread to intervenous drug users and other groups, but these groups have been categorized as high risk. Having said this, there will always be decisions made by the Supreme Court that people don't agree with, but we have to live with regardless.


mario
said

I think people should realize that there is a deferral for HETEROSEXUALS as well. There is huge amounts of discrimination in the questionnaires, it isn't a matter of gay or straight, it's a matter of risks. Should we not ask about diabetes or family history, because of genetic discrimination. GET OVER IT.I DO agree monogomous gay couples should get a pass, but statistics prove it over and over, the gay population has a higher incidence of HIV. FOR WHATEVER reasons which explain it, it's a reality and it's about the public safety and not someones crusade.Like I said, family history, personal choices are involved in the questionnaire. The fact that this one question is there, means that objective statistics prove that it's a factor worth asking about. Don't protest for the sake protest


McKenzie
said

You can't really be suprised here, this bigoted and ignorent practice has been going on with CBS for years.....the shock is, that when its all layed down in front of the courts, they still get to do it. If I go to the doctor, get tested, and get a notorised letter stating that my blook is clean clean clean, I still cannot donate....but some random hetero guy can just walk in and give blood, regardless of his um "sexual habits"Well CBS, you aint getting any of my O-neg blood that you need so bad.....


B. Kelley, Ontario
said

As a potential blood recipient this ruling makes me feel safer. This is not about rights and hurt feelings. It's about the safety of something that may be put into my body. The undeniable fact is that homosexual men suffer a much higher rate of potentially dangerous infections and their blood is automatically in a higher risk category as a result. That may be an inconvenient and unfortunate fact but it is a fact all the same. When it comes to balancing my health and safety against the potentially hurt feelings of another person, there simply is no contest.


THE
said

A few things worth mentioning:1) May I ask people commenting to give a little respect to the gay community and refrain from using the term "sexual preference" as it is an offensive term. Preference implies choice, which being gay is not. The corret term is sexual orientation. 2) I think I speak for many gay men when I say that we don't take offense to screening out people based on risky behaviour. What we take offense to is the generalization that all gay men engage in risky lifestyles. This is not the same as men vs. women statistics for insurance. 3) If CBS were to ban black people from donating blood simply because they have the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the world, would you also say that it's just a minority group whining for political correctness? It's a human rights and discrimination issue. We are a group of people being treated differently on the basis of sexual orientation - when the issue at hand should be the ACTIVITY of the individuals, not just who the individuals are. A 65 year old man married to the same woman for 45 years is no less risky than a 65 year old gay man who has been with the same partner for 45 years.


Roger Dodier
said

WOW. I am totally appalled at this decision. What about straight men who are having sex with gay or bi men. And also what about straight men who are having sex with prostitutes? They are at the same risk or higher. I am a gay man and have a partner for several years. I get tested every six months and can't believe that because of my sexuality, I am being punished by society or the court. What a shame that our society is still that way after so many years.



10-78
said

Everybody loves the courts and the charter...until they don't agree with the decision.


Ian
said

Chuck Ryer says "get with the times" Well here are the times we live in:In the USA, it is estimated that nearly 255,000 men who have sex with men were living with HIV/AIDS in 2007, and nearly 5,400 had died. Around 48% of all people diagnosed with AIDS in America in 2007 were probably exposed to HIV through male-to-male sexual contact. In the UK, by the end of June 2009, around 45,947 diagnoses of HIV had been in men who had probably become infected through sex with another man. 53% of these men were aged below 35.2 Again, these are the times we live in Chcuk


Geoff
said

"just as heterosexuals with multiple partners currently face one-year deferrals, "

Why aren't you people afraid of this statement? Oh right! Because straight people who sleep around don't get HIV. Right. Silly me.

Man some of you are so ignorant it hurts!





jake
said

If I were dying and needed blood I could care less where it came from.

This decision is beyond ridiculous and is based on ancient ignorance of the causes or transmission. Does a woman who has experienced multiple partners know if any of her partners were Bi-sexual or IV drug users.

Surely the blood can be tested.


charlie
said

A good ruling at last from the courts. They decided on the law, not some loose idea of "rights". The issue is one of risk and public health, not one of rights by some group. As to risk, keeping the blood supply as safe from possible contamination as possible is paramount. I doubt that anyone who suffers from epilepsy would sue because they felt their "right" to get behind the wheel of a car took priority over the rights of other mororists not to be struck if the epileptic's car went out of control if they had a seizure. Get over your political agenda on this matter and try to support the greater good served by not allowing those who MAY present a danger to their fellow citizens from doing so in the name of their "rights". I have rights also, which for too long have been subrogated to the rights of the loudest special interest group!


hyphen Pearce
said

Thank Goodness.......Finally !!!!Finally !! Common sense over "Rights".What rights does my neighbor have when He contracted Hep C from a blood transfusion??Do YOU want your kids ( family) to receive a death sentence?I cannot give blood, because I have a thyroid condition. I gave for years before when my health was good. I am not upset! Its common sense not to use any blood that may be detrimental to the receiver, Simple !!It's time all these "Interest" groups got off their pedestals and came back down to Earth.Leave your "Rights" in Space........!!So what you can't give Blood!? "C'est la vie"


LB
said

This is for Heather and the others that seem to agree with this ruling. Are you thinking this through??? You can be a straight male or female who has multiple partners but still be allowed to give blood. Now do you think the blood bank is safe??? It should not be about who you have had sex with but the blood needs to be tested and retested for safety. If you think


jake
said

Who cares? If they don't want your blood, it's not your lost. It is society's lost.


Kowalski
said

Avert.org reports that sex between men have 10 times the number of aids and HIV cases compared with heterosexual in Canada. To eliminate this high risk group from donating blood increases the safety of the blood services supply dramatically. It has nothing to do with bigotry or homophobia. Its just common sense.


RCR
said

Politically correct or not. To deny that gay men are more susceptible to Aids is denying facts.I must agree though that blood screening leaves a lot to be desired and yes, blood from heterosexual people certainly can be tainted. There needs to be a starting point though and it seems as if this judge has done that.


Tony (from Azilda)
said

I have no issues with homosexuals donating blood, as long as the only recipient is another homosexual. If we need to be politically correct and allow those at risk to donate blood, then it would be necessary to start a blood bank service dedicated to those of the same inclination.


CB
said

This issue is not about someone's basic right. The issue is "are the questions used in the pre-donation screening process outdated"? Yes potentially they are, however it's one of many current tools in place to screen through POTENTIALLY high risk donors.

Screening of donors is a very common practice here in Canada and in the US. The use of the questionnaires is the FIRST step when screening donors. As a person who works in the blood and plasma industry, ALL companies that deal with receiving and distributing blood products to patients have a very strict process when screening donors. This screening process is to help with the health and safety of the blood products donated. The CBS and other organizations not only want to have quality products, but they MUST have quality products that meet specific standards. Hence the need for these types of screening processes. Would you be willing to risk CBS lowering their quality screening standards when you have to recieve a blood transfusion??



Mark
said

It's a proven fact that homosexual men have a higher rate of HIV than heterosexual people therefore this is a common sense decision. This is a matter of life and death and should be considered thus even though some people's feelings will be hurt.


Scott Stelmaschuk
said

This is utterly ludicrous! How can this not be discrimination? The ban on accepting homosexual blood suggests that only homosexual men are capable of carrying HIV, which science will tell you is a pure falsehood.Furthermore, technically, the ban does not apply to lesbians, as there is no question about have you had sex with another woman since 1977? The ban only applies to homosexual men, not homosexual women. This is discrimination, there is no other word for it. Everyday I hear commercials on the radio for "There is a desperate need for __ type blood in your area." And yet, Canadian Blood Services will turn away willing donors, simply because of who they sleep with in their bedroom.To borrow a phrase, they have no business in the bedrooms of the nation. And this outdated, ignorant belief that only homosexual men are carries of HIV and will contaminate us all if they were allowed to give blood, is wrong, discriminating, and downright hateful.


Heather
said

I really have to agree with this ruling - I think that the potential safety of the blood is much more important that the political implications. I wouldn't be willing to accept a higher probability of contracting HIV from donated blood to improve gay rights. I don't know the specifics of the case, and all I have to base this comment on is the article above, which is written with a rather obvious bias...


Kim
said

As it should be. Everyone has a choice with respect to their own sexual preferences however I too have a choice of the risks that I am prepared to take in the event I need blood. It has been proven that many diseases are passed through body fluids and as such I say....my rights should count for something to without having to go public to achieve them.


vinnie
said

It comes down to this: suppose you need blood...and just pretend for one second you have a choice:
1) Blood from a 75 yr old man who has been married to the same woman for 55 years or
2) Blood from a gay guy.

who's blood do you want?


Kathy
said

The sad thing about this is had Mr. Freeman simply gone to the CBS and said "Hey, I want to donate blood, and even though I'm gay, here's a bunch of test results that prove my blood is perfectly clean and good," instead of LYING, would this have even been an issue?

And how long as CBS been around? They've ALWAYS had those questions on their paperwork. And it's only just NOW that the homosexual community is getting up in arms? Really?


kestral
said

would contracting a blood born illness because i needed a life saving transfusion be horrible? yes it would. would dying because of a lack of blood be worse? ask yourselves that.


terry jones
said

Just some perspective-my husband and daughters cant donate because of the areas they had travelled to and because they ate english beef during a certain period. i can't because i take certain medications. they have to ensure the blood supply as best as they can and because of latency periods for many infections, they have to let the numbers do the talking. it's for all our safety.


Smarty Pants
said

I think that high-risk people shouldn't donate blood period, but did you know that if you have tattoos or been to England during the mad cow disease epidemic(even if you're a vegetarian) you also can't donate even if you have tested negative many times. So I don't think it's that bad if gay men are banned, only because it's the patient who's suppose to benefit from your blood and why are you out-raged that you can't do it if you wouldn't benefit from it at all? Only the people who donate for selfish reasons would be so upset about not being able to donate.


NCJ
said

They should be able to. Everyone know sexual orientation is determined by nurture and not nature. Their blood is just like everyone else's.


happy
said

What utter nonsense! It should be standard practice to test ALL blood donated no matter the source. This is a regressive decision.


The Rat
said

To Clarify: There are 20 "High Risk" questions asked of EVERYONE who wants to donate. And YES your donation will not be accepted if you are hetrosexual and :a) don't know the sexual background of anyone you have slept with in the past 12 monthsb)slept with someone who accepted money or drugs for sexc)paid for sexd)used drugs with a needle, even oncee)been in africaetc.......These questions protect the blood supply as well as the nurses that are handling it from your body.Anyone who says that gays are not more promiscious than MOST hetro's WAKE UP!!!!!


Brian in calgary
said

I have no problem with gay people getting married, rights to each others pensions, health care etc just like everyone else is entitled under the Charter. I do agree with the Blood Bank on this issue. They have taken steps as best as they can to ensure the blood is safe. I guess you can only do so much and hope for the best. I am sure some bad blood gets through. The list of people they ban is all to protect us and as far as I am concerned, blood from gay people is like playing Russan roulette. If you want to donate, give cash to a local charity and benifit people that way. You still are contributing to society.


Lily
said

My initial reaction was outrage, my best friend is gay. But when i read the article carefully, i think the judge made sense. Similar to the fact that young men pay higher car insurance then women based on generalised statistics... Unfortunatly, many gay men do not protect themselves and a high percentage of them frequently change partners. There are exceptions and the community is improving, but for today, the statistics are not good.In the end, while gays might feel outrage, their quality of life wont be affected.


viral venus
said

There are sexual activities that put adults at greater risk for HIV exposure but simply being a gay man is not necessarily one of them. A blanket ban on gay male donors seems to be a copout that plays on former myths and prejudices against that demographic rather than even attempting to deal with the realities of risky sexual behaviour that occurs in both gay males and in many of the supposedly "safe" donor groups. If anyone really thinks this kind of blinders on approach to screening makes the blood supply safer they are deluding themselves.


MP
said

@Keith in Brampton

Then medicine / pharmeceutical industries better find a way to product perfectly compatible synthetic blood / plasma.


Tom
said

I have O negative blood, the universal donor. Before I came out I would donate every 3 months (that's age 18-21) making roughly 16 donations. Someone can correct me if i'm wrong but I remember hearing that each donation produces enough blood to be used on 3 people. So there's a possibility that my donations had helped 48 different people. If I had come out 4 years earlier that contribution would not have existed. Great job CBS, great job.


James T
said

The meak shall inherit the earth, but it is the weak - minded and/or willed - that will have destroyed it. This is a terrible ruling, pandering to fear instead of science. A promiscuous person may represent a threat to the blood supply, but their sexual orientation does not. (In fact, while I have know a few hetrosexual "STD Vending Machines", I have never encountered a homosexual one.) This is discrimination shrouded in ignorance, which is the worst kind of all.


Dave
said

3 months ago I had open-heart surgery and had to accept blood products during surgery. Not one of you commenting on this site should be giving unqualified comments about thinking our blood products are always 100% safe. Things get-missed and overlooked ...... and until you have some of this flowing in your veins like-I-do ..... you have no business telling blood patients what low-level of screening that they should be willing to risk. WALK-A-MILE-IN-MY-SHOES and you will quickly do a 180 and start using common-sense instead of again worrying about a minority group and their rights .... instead of the rights of people who actually need these life-saving blood products !!!!!!!


Jarrell
said

I can see the need to try to make the blood supply as safe as possible. But I see no new restrictions or questions for heterosexual men who may or may not have had sex with multiple partners. HIV knows no orientation. I see here that gay men are singled out, and the assumption that gay means a likelihood of AIDS/HIV. This decision is purely heterosexist in every way.


Keith in Brampton
said

Reading the comments here proves one thing: quite a few posting responses either did not read the whole article, or did not understand what they read. The judge did NOT condone the questions asked by CBS, or specifically endorse screening out gays; the decision is simply an interpretation of the law based on the question raised by the plaintiff. CBS has a right - and, in fact, an OBLIGATION - to screen individuals for potential health risks. Recipients need to receive clean blood. To this end, many non-gays are also banned for various reasons. Gays have presumably been singled out because of a higher tendency toward promiscuity and because their practices lead to a higher risk of HIV transmittal. That's not to say I agree with the question as formulated. I do agree that banning SOLELY on the grounds of orientation is wrong, and that CBS needs to revisit this particular screening question. The sugestion made by the doctors, as given at the end of the article, seems eminently sensible.


Dave
said

HIV prevalence is higher in certain visible minorities groups than it is in the general population. Let's exclude them too! Oh, and I think it's also higher in the male population, than it is in the female population. Let's take men out of the equation as well. In fact, I've got a brilliant idea, let's stop giving blood all together. This way we can be sure that nobody dying in an emergency room will contract a disease!!


Vickie
said

If you go onto the website for CBS (Candian Blood Services) you can take a look at the questionnaire all donors must answer. While reading through you will notice many questions including, have you been exposed to hepititis, used cocaine, had surgery, received blood outside Canada, etc. The questionnaire is to eliminate those who are in a high risk category. #19 is asking male donors if they have had sex since 1977 with another man. It also asks female donors if they have had sex with a man who has since 1977 had sex with a man. AIDS was believed to have begun in animals(possibly a monkey) and moved to humans. That is why you are asked if you have been in contact with monkeys or handled any of the monkey's body fluid. This is not a decision based on prejudice but a decision based on fact and medical repitition (how disease spreads). I ask you this, if one of the 60,000 men and women in Canada that has AIDS/HIV donated blood and his blood slipped through the screening process and it was given to you, how would you feel then ? What if you donated blood not knowing you had been exposed to AIDS and gave it to a child or your best friend? Please think of others, not just yourself. No one in a high risk group should consider giving blood. Would you want someone with cancer donating blood to you? How about a STD or hepititis?


Pat
said

How does the C.B.S. know that the questionaires are truly factual. ? I gave blood many years ago, and I forgot one time I had taken an antihistamine for allergies several hours pior to the donation. However when I was asked if I had taken any medication and I revealed I had, that was the end of it. IF I had lied and said no medication was taken, blood would have been donated. My question is would C.B.S. be able to test for such medication.? It seems C.B.S. is behind the 8 ball for testing. maybe someone can enlighten me. I can just see headlines now that the C.B.S. are in desperate need of blood yet these homosexuals who test negative cant donate. No doubt this will come back and bite the CBS.


Ross from Whitby
said

People, take the emotions out and read the article. The court ruling has nothing to do with whether or not gays should be allowed to donate blood. It is ruling only that the CBS is NOT a government agency and therefore not under the restrictions provided by the Charter of Rights. Your anger should be at CBS for the way they use this freedom, not at the court's ruling.


Chris - Kitchener
said

I can't believe some of the non-logical comments on here. Obviously those who are of the homosexual nature are at a higher risk, to contracting STI's . That's just the facts. Yes heterosexual people do contract the same STI's But the rates of infection are still much lower. This ruling keeps us much safer, FYI you're also turned away from donating blood if you've paid money/drugs for sex with a prostitute. Again eliminating the high risk individuals. You're also turned away if the nurse sees all kinds of trac marks from needles. It ONLY makes sense. If the rates of infection for homosexual people where the same as heterosexual people I could understand how people are offended. I think the case that brought this to light is a perfect example of why this ruling is justified.


Whew !
said

Thank you for making this medically sound decision. I feel better about the safety of our blood supply now.


Sandusky
said

Thankfully common sense has prevailed. Public safety must always outweight the hurt feelings of a selfish individual who admitted to lying and admitted to putting the public at risk. This is a fair judgment.


alien
said

surprised to see so many bigots in this country and on this site. Makes me ashamed to be Canadian.


Dan
said

You give blood to help other people, not so you can feel good about yourself. This isn't a rights issue for the donor, its a rights issue for the recipient. I think that should be clear.


danya
said

Finally some common sence now.This should have been ruled a long time ago.



Robin
said

Common Sense? Hardly. Once again, negative stereotypes continue to fuel social policy.


Rick @ Ottawa
said

I'm sorry to upset the posters here who support this man, but the fact remains that cases of HIV and Hep run higher in gay men than they do in the hetro population. This has nothing to do with gays right but has everything to do with lowering the risk to all Canadians who require blood. Gay men are not the only group that can not give blood. People over 65 can not give blood. People who travel to certain countries can not give blood. Again, it's all about reducing risk to the general population and it's a ruling that I fully support.


Mark
said

What the gay activists fail to recognize is that 'testing' entails looking for evidence of an immune reaction to the HIV virus. Until the presence of the virus and the body's reaction to it is 'detectable' the test will be negative. A negative test simply means that we are unable to detect the virus-it does NOT mean that it's not present. High risk groups such as gay men are exactly that-high risk. No amount of posturing or gay rights activism will change the science. Absurd statements like "Did Harper appoint the judge" simply reflect upon the character and agenda of the sort that would make such absurd comments.


Margo
said

The Canadian blood services are not doing their job. Why in this day and age are these tests not done that show sexually tranmitted diseases.? Many years ago I was a blood donor, but the Canadian Red X sickened me by their slip shod methods of testing that I have never given another pint. Many innocent people died because of their carelessness. The Red X is a black mark in my book, and will be forever, as I dont trust them. How do blood services know who is not telling the truth. ? Anyone can say anything on paper. ? This is so dIscriminatory and they cry for blood donors. I hope this goes all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.


TT
said

Mandosa & RK - I could not have said it better! Finally being politically correct does not override this just decision. There is no question that this is going to upset gay men, and women alike, however it has been proven time and again that this population are at greater risk of certain blood transmittable illnesses, as are those who use injectable narcotics, etc.


Glenn C
said

I think that the person receiving the blood deserves the right to know that all possible measures have been taken to ensure that the product is good! Take that how you will.


RK
said

The blood supply must be protected. Those who receive these blood products must be protected. Even if someone's feelings are hurt. I personally feel anyone who has had unprotected sex with multiple partners should also be banned. I to cannot donate blood, not because I am gay, but because my wife and I adopted a son several years ago who's biomother was an IV drug user and had passed Hep C onto him. As long as he lives with us, I am banned from donating. Was I upset? Yes, I was. I had made 73 blood donations and wanted to continue. But the health of others must be paramount.


Mark Palmer
said

Wow, science prevailing over social engineering. I actually didn't think such common sense still existed in the land.


Jeff in Ottawa
said

I have been a blood donor since I was 17 and this policy was in place then. This is an issue of blood safety- and it's not the first or the last to appear. What it comes down to is that no test for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is perfect. Canadian Blood Services is hedging their bets by excluding a group that they believe presents a significantly higher risk for having HIV/AIDS or other STIs. I believe that many people unhappy or uncomfortable could be placated by some statistics on this issue. What percentage of the general population has HIV/AIDS? Compare that to the homosexual male population. Is the infection rate the same, 10% higher, 50% higher, 10 times higher? I don't know but I sure would like to. I think if one population can be clearly defined and can be clearly and scientifically demonstrated to present a very significantly higher risk to blood safety then Canadian Blood Services should exclude them. However, if the infection rate in the homosexual male community is not demonstrably higher than the general population then there is no case for exclusion. Can anyone out there offer insight into these rates?Lastly, remember that this case needs to be about the right of the BLOOD RECIPIENT to receive a safe product more than it is about the right of homosexual men to donate.


Adam in Bowmanville
said

I initially thought "Wow, this is horrible" but, after putting it into a different perspective I can understand it.
There are legitimate reasons to not accept blood from people due to the fact that the supply may be contaminated. The receiver shouldn't have to worry about where it came from and I give the example of those who have travelled to other countries who can't give blood or those who have had peircings, or those who do drugs, etc, etc.
If there's a heightened risk of infecting a blood supply from any factor, including men having sex with men, then I somewhat agree with this decision.


Andy
said

Put aside your emotion for a moment and ask yourself this question: if you were seriously injured, would you want tainted blood? Do not belittle an agency that is attempting to give you "non-tainted" blood.If we can't learn from history, we are doomed to fail again.


James Wilson
said

So what is the definition of sex? I mean if I had oral sex with a man is that it or can I still donate? And if I wanted a gay friend to be tested to see if he or she could be a match in a serious case where my blood type is rare can I do that? I have had sex with women that are way less clean then some gay men I have met. Bad decision! Was this judge appointed by Harper?


SMcentee
said

The health and saftey of Canadians ranks high above someones feelings.We tried the politically correct thing a few years ago,any body remember that? We are paying for thousands of people who contacted all sorts of diseases from the tainted blood.Is it really worth it?If gays want to give blood,start your own blood bank to give to other gays.I want fresh clean blood when needed for my family thanks.Canadians are entitled to the best and safest products regarless of what they are . The risk is simply not worth it.


redhed
said

This is just archaic!! Why are they even asking your sexual orientation? Blood services needs to do their job....test it all!!


Francis the Libertarian
said

I can understand why the gay community may be angry, but this isn't a rights-based issue. We do not have a constitutional right to give blood. I also can't give blood because of the antidepressants I take. That does not mean that I am being discriminated against because of my mental disability.


Safety First
said

This is the correct verdict and as one of other comments states: gays and their freaking feelings are irrelevant. Get over yourselves and your asinine self-importance. The lives and safety of innocent , vulnerable people is more important than bowing to the hysterical demands of a bunch of queens.


The
said

@ LD < - With all due respect, you HAVE MS. I am gay, but I do not HAVE Aids. There is NOTHING risky about my blood. Some gay men may engage in risky behaviour, but gay men having monogamous sex in itself is not risky. Just the same, many heterosexuals may engage in risky behaviour, yet they are not collectively classified as having risky blood. CBS should qualify the questions on the donor questionnaire. I have only ever been with one partner, and I am the only person my partner has ever been with. Heterosexuals may be surprised to know that this is quite common in gay relationships (it is among most of my friends anyway).


MacW
said

People, let us not forget, the judge was not there to change the rules, but to assess the rules as they stand and determine the case. If you do not like the rules, the judge can not change them, but rule on the law as it stands, simple as that. That is the facts folks, now for my opinion. Gay men are at a higher risk group, that is the science of how it goes, that one is a fact and if hurting a gay mans feeling saves one persons life, oh well, can not really feel bad for the gay guy now can I.


Thinkingmachine2
said

Straight people are no more or less immune to sexually transmitted diseases than gay people. Sexual orientation, or the sex of people one has sex with, should have no bearing on whether or not one is fit to give blood. Recently engaging in activities which spread infections should.


Tony
said

Finally common sense rules.


Elaine
said

I am a Blood Donor, and have donated 74 times so far. Being a Blood Donor is a way of life. To jeoparize someone elses life makes no sense. We give blood to save lives. There are definite risk factors in the gay life style. An AIDS test is only as good as the day it was done.


Chris
said

The "rights" of a small minority does not trump the actual rights of the majority to be kept safe. No other group puts themselves and their agenda ahead of all others in western society like this group does. It's not bias, it's common sense!Like it or not, this tiny yet vocal group are blinded by their own ideology. If a few Canadians have to get sick in the process, well, them's the breaks. Right? Wrong!


Allan K, Vancouver, BC
said

Woah... there's still people who appear to be bashing homosexuals. Although in this case the person may have had an STD (syphillis in this case), that does not imply that all gay people, especially those in longer-term relationships, have a higher chance of contracting STDs... nor does it mean that heterosexual people have a lesser chance in contracting it either. And the rights of the recipient? What rights are those? Are you sure that you can choose the supply of blood that you get, especially if you're in hospital with an injury that's rapidly draining your blood supply? I'd be lucky if I was able to get any type of compatible clean blood and survive from that. Finally, "common sense" in Canada and several other countries no longer dictates heterosexual relations only... in fact to hear that being mentioned TODAY years after its former time just sounds outrageous and a sign of our increasingly closed-door society.


Darcy
said

For all of you complaining about the judge and the judicial system, this has nothing to do with the courts discriminating. It is a straightforward case of whether the Charter applies to the CBS, nothing more. It is not a government body; therefore, the Charter does not apply and that was the entire basis of the complainant's argument. This does not prevent him from suing for discrimination or making human rights complaint. Read the story and understand cases before you make stupid comments slamming the judicial system!


Will
said

This is not a rights issue. It is a safety of the blood supply issue. Period. Red cross also bans others such as myself (I had the Anthrax vaccine and can never give blood again.) I'm not suing even though the vaccination was required by my military service in theatre.


Chuck Ryer
said

This needs to be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. This "ploicy" labels Gay men with the harsh stigmatism that All gay men have aids. If Canadian Blood Services Screened their blood properly then there should be no issues. I think that This is a slap in the face. What about all the Straight women who have disease, the lesbians too. Also the closet case men who will NEVER tell the blood bank that they have slept with another man. They cry about having blood shortages, then deny people the chance to give blood. I say that if they want to keep this policy then they should at least ammend it to allow Gay people to donate with a "Fit for Donation" form from their family doctor. (Maybe everyone hsould have to) This whole policy is a load of Crap. It goes hand in hand with the Don't ask Don't tell policy. It is about time for CHANGE! I know at least a good 10-15 gay ppl who are clean and healthy that could be donating blood and saving lives right now! SHAME ON YOU ONTARIO COURT! I understand protection... but GET WITH THE TIMES!


Brian Fr Langley
said

Talk about deja-vu, just a few short years ago (remember) political correctness trumped common sense and the red cross was fired from being Canada's blood products supplier. By then it was to late for 1000's of innocent victims who paid for this politically correct decision with their lives. Now here we have virtually the same debate. For those who feel marginalized by this decision let me just say, lets get this straight, the lives of my family and friends is worth more than your hurt feelings.


crystal
said

If the person is in a long standing relationship they should be able to donate. This person was obviously not only gay, but also had multiple partners or at least had a partner who had multiple partners. That is the lie they should be after. If he was trying to make a point he failed as this only proves that homosexual men are rife with blood diseases. Which I do not beleive is true as there are promiscuous heterosexual men and women that catch these diseases as well.


Catherine Kingdom
said

Finally some common sense from our courts! What a welcome change.


abc
said

about time


Hannibal
said

So a Judge is now an expert on diseases of the blood and human rights..........hmmm. Bet the Harper cronies will love this one.ALL people should be treated equally and straight people get HIV as well in case you did not notice.Shameful.


Ken
said

I love the fact that they keep referring to gay blood as below standard. Does this also then imply that I as a gay person am also sub-standard?Another interesting point is that Blood Services won't accept my gay blood but we are asked to be organ donors and there isn't an issue.


Lynn
said

I think this is a bad ruling. Blood products are in demand. With the ability to test for HIV and other diseases that can be transmitted by blood, why should gay men be prevented from donating. Personally if IO were in an accident, and needed blood, I don't care who it comes from, so long as it's been tested first.


LD
said

I don't care about political correctness or whos feelings are hurt when it comes to the quality of blood being donated.I have MS and they won't let me donate either because they are unsure of the cause. Why would they take a chance on anyone who could potentially hurt the people receiving the blood. There is something seriously wrong with anyone who can't see that this is the right thing to do.


JROC
said

Well said MP, I can understand a sex worker being denied the right to give blood but in this day and age when both hetero and homosexuals can get AIDS and other diseases I don`t see how they can justify the safety concerns. AIDS is no longer a GAY DISEASE. this is stupid


Redneck Albertan
said

When you remove all of the emotion, rhetoric and politically correct dogma from the issue, the ruling does make sense. High risk groups should be banned from donating blood. After the Tainted Blood Scandal, does it make sense to forget the lessons learned?


RGBrook
said

Banning gay men or men who have had sex with men from donating blood does nothing to protect our blood supply. It only proves the ignorance of our judicial powers once again. This is a shameful decision that is not only riddled with discrimination, but serves to escalate a false sense of security when it comes to the quality of donated blood in Canada. This decision appears to be made to appease the undereducated on the transmission of HIV in relation to gay men. Lets never forget that HIV is also prevalent throughout the heterosexual community, intravenous drug users and a host of other high-risk groups - none of which have anything to do with our gay population. Appeasing ignorance will only fuel problems for gay rights, and eliminate healthy blood donations which one day may be needed by you or me. Something to carefully think about before opening ones mouth to offer further misinformation which helps no one.


Trevor in the Hat
said

So heterosexual men and women are immune from HIV,AIDS, Syphlis and other blood disorders?


Ash A
said

@MP <--THAT'S common sense. Gay people can't donate blood but men or women who sleep around can? How is that not homophobic?


realist
said

yeah...because I'm sure that straight people are ALWAYS honest on those questionairres....


Christian McCulloch
said

It's outrageous when healthy and responsible gay men can not contribute to the blood supply in time of need because the Canadian Blood Service can't handle it's own job of screening blood for diseases. Any person can lie about their medical history or their sexual orientation and it's up to the blood services agency to do its job properly and screen the blood. Total discrimination upheld by a Canadian court. Shame on you.


ann carlin
said

"are you kidding me! now you are not able to give blood because you may be gay. i have never been, and have never considered myself to become gay.i am a human being, gay people are human beings.to be gay is not in ones' blood. i am mortified with this issue. basic human rights have been violated by this. no editing for clarity is needed here ctv. these are my words as i wrote them.


Feeling better in NB
said

I'm glad to see some common sense keep the quality of blood products at a higher standard. Some people may not like this, and seem to think that it's a human-rights issue, and it is. The rights of those receiving the donations are prime.


RK
said

Well at least court had it right this time! Our blood supply will remain protected and those who lie and donate blood will be held responsible.


mandosa
said

Finally a case where common sense, instead of political correctness rules the day. Justice Catherine Aitken for PM!


MP
said

Let me get this straight....a man who's had sex with another man at anypoint since 1977 can't give blood, even if tested clean...yet me - a heterosexual male who's had a few partners during the same period and also tested clean can give blood.

Wow! Just WOW!


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's Top Stories

Local authorities say the incident at the Deerfield Beach recreational vehicle park began with a shooting early Thursday evening.

Canadian killed in Florida campground shooting

More  1 Video(s) 1

RCMP looking for Sawyer Clarke Robison, 27, considered a person of interest in shootings of two of RCMP members.

Suspect arrested in Alberta RCMP shooting

More  2 Video(s) 2

caterpillar, electro-motive

CAW boss accuses Caterpillar of breaking the rules

More    Comments  

Most Talked about Stories

I think he was pushed to take matters into his own hands. I have a teenage son and if he was involved with a drug dealer I would be furious and try anything to save him like this father did for his daughter. Why do police often say they can't do anything until it's too late? Whether it be a drug dealer or an abusive spouse, the police can't seem to do anything until something really bad happens. In this case they could have raided the drug dealers home and arrested him. The whole town knew what was going on in that house but yet the police chose to do nothing. Release this man and give him a medal for doing the right thing by his daughter. I can't wait to see the episode on W5, I will certainly be watching this one.

Shelley

W5: How far would you go to save your child?