After the fight for acceptance, homosexuals embark on a new fight...
Raghav (named changed) was a regular blood donor since his college days, and had once also donated blood to help his dad recover from a critical health situation. But one day his application form for blood donation was rejected because it had a tick marked on the question which asked if the donor has had sexual relations with a person of the same sex after 1977. Disappointed on being refused on grounds of being gay, Raghu decided not to donate blood anymore.
After legalising homosexual relationships in India, the various other laws attached to it are in a state of flux, and one of it is the ban on bisexuals or gay men from donating their blood. This prohibition was first introduced in 1977 by the Food and Drug Association, USA, to combat the HIV pandemic, which was rampant at that time. The first signs of AIDS were observed in gay men in the early 1980s, which led to researches that concluded that unprotected anal sex was a major factor intensifying this epidemic. This had led the FDA to impose a ban on homosexuals from donating blood.
Addressing this issue in context to the Indian scenario, Dr. Anju of Rotary Blood Bank says, “Till now, we have been following the rules that exist in most countries. We have a clause according to which we can’t take blood from those involved with multiple partners, that includes both homosexuals and heterosexuals.” On questioning if people in India reveal such intimate details, she said, “Well, we haven’t encountered many such cases and I’m sure that there are many who don’t reveal such details while donating blood. So, all we can do is take as much precaution as we can from our end. But we do not take blood from homosexuals because the probability of them carrying HIV and being involved with multiple partners is much more. So that’s a precautionary measure we follow.”
While this tussle between the law-makers and the affected party has existed since years, the revoking of Article 377 has brought forth this issue in India. “I would absolutely want the government to re-consider this clause, but till now we see no signs of any such thing happening. It took years for us to get breathing space in the society, so the possibility of gays being allowed to donate blood looks bleak”, mentioned Charlie, a homosexual.
Common sense dictates that laws ought to be formulated according to the needs of a country rather than to blindly follow an existing rule. If the debate is that homosexuals are more likely to be carriers of HIV because of engaging in unprotected anal sex, then isn’t there an equal chance of being infected with HIV due to unprotected peno-vaginal sex? And if the answer to that is a yes, then why should there exist a discrimination on the basis of gender preference for a generous gesture like donating blood? Being the most powerful and advanced country in the world, the guidelines given by the US were considered sacrosanct by all, but in the recent past, countries like Tasmania and Australia have challenged the laws on gay blood donation.
Such a ban, however necessary, is discriminatory and would perhaps cause dissonance. To avoid such a predicament, it’s imperative to develop laws and rules that support the progress of a society and take it forward. But, perhaps for now, all we can do is hope!
For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2009
Raghav (named changed) was a regular blood donor since his college days, and had once also donated blood to help his dad recover from a critical health situation. But one day his application form for blood donation was rejected because it had a tick marked on the question which asked if the donor has had sexual relations with a person of the same sex after 1977. Disappointed on being refused on grounds of being gay, Raghu decided not to donate blood anymore.
After legalising homosexual relationships in India, the various other laws attached to it are in a state of flux, and one of it is the ban on bisexuals or gay men from donating their blood. This prohibition was first introduced in 1977 by the Food and Drug Association, USA, to combat the HIV pandemic, which was rampant at that time. The first signs of AIDS were observed in gay men in the early 1980s, which led to researches that concluded that unprotected anal sex was a major factor intensifying this epidemic. This had led the FDA to impose a ban on homosexuals from donating blood.
Addressing this issue in context to the Indian scenario, Dr. Anju of Rotary Blood Bank says, “Till now, we have been following the rules that exist in most countries. We have a clause according to which we can’t take blood from those involved with multiple partners, that includes both homosexuals and heterosexuals.” On questioning if people in India reveal such intimate details, she said, “Well, we haven’t encountered many such cases and I’m sure that there are many who don’t reveal such details while donating blood. So, all we can do is take as much precaution as we can from our end. But we do not take blood from homosexuals because the probability of them carrying HIV and being involved with multiple partners is much more. So that’s a precautionary measure we follow.”
While this tussle between the law-makers and the affected party has existed since years, the revoking of Article 377 has brought forth this issue in India. “I would absolutely want the government to re-consider this clause, but till now we see no signs of any such thing happening. It took years for us to get breathing space in the society, so the possibility of gays being allowed to donate blood looks bleak”, mentioned Charlie, a homosexual.
Common sense dictates that laws ought to be formulated according to the needs of a country rather than to blindly follow an existing rule. If the debate is that homosexuals are more likely to be carriers of HIV because of engaging in unprotected anal sex, then isn’t there an equal chance of being infected with HIV due to unprotected peno-vaginal sex? And if the answer to that is a yes, then why should there exist a discrimination on the basis of gender preference for a generous gesture like donating blood? Being the most powerful and advanced country in the world, the guidelines given by the US were considered sacrosanct by all, but in the recent past, countries like Tasmania and Australia have challenged the laws on gay blood donation.
Such a ban, however necessary, is discriminatory and would perhaps cause dissonance. To avoid such a predicament, it’s imperative to develop laws and rules that support the progress of a society and take it forward. But, perhaps for now, all we can do is hope!
For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2009
Iridium satellites, which by definition have a large overlap with the debris released in space. We’ll need to bear this in mind when we send out more satellites in the future.
loss and longing that you speak about is still around – it could, for example, well be a man sitting in a café, sipping coffee by himself, cheerful, bullish on life, doing his crossword. Suddenly, we see tears rolling down his cheeks. There could be a zillion reasons, only the manifestations are different. These are complex times and the trappings, idiom, style and manner of expressing love, feeling and emotion has changed to keep pace with it. The real thing, however remains intact.” The inimitable Gulzar comes next. “I don’t think it is all true, although (partially) it seems so. I feel it’s a completely time and place things. The long drawn romance born of rishtas that came from different cities, defining the distance-lends-enchantment factor in todays’ life belongs to the fiction category! The tremulous meeting of eyes, accidental brushing of hand leading to unspoken, inarticulated, romantic highs doesn’t happen any more. That was then … the fifties. In year 2009, it is a more pro-active, informal and direct interface between young men and women living in a world dominated by internet, Cell phones and ATMs. It is a generational thing, That is the way the young people conduct romance today… and I go along with it all the way!”
interestingly, it is cheaper to buy carbon credits than to invest in environment protecting and technologically advanced machinery or in related innovation. Think about the hilarious situation. While as near as in July 2008, a unit of carbon credit was trading at above €33, currently, the same unit is languishing at €16. That basically means that companies belonging to developed economies, that have huge amounts of spare cash (more so as they refused to invest all along in greener technology) can buy even surplus carbon credits in the currently underpriced market for future indiscretions. Such companies might have the audacity to become bigger polluters in the future (based on the bank that they are creating of purchased carbon credits) or might have the temerity to even sell these surplus credits, once their per unit price appreciates, to book magnanimous profits.