render its verdict in the Kyle Freeman vs. Canadian Blood Services trial.
CBS asks male donors if they have had sex with other men and if so bars them from giving blood. There is no similar bar on heterosexuals no matter how promiscuous.
CBS sued Freeman for lying about having sex with other men and then giving blood. Freeman counterclaimed saying the bar on gay men giving blood was unconstitutional.
The decision will almost certainly be appealed. But what the decision will be depends very much on the judge's view of the evidence -- do men who have sex with other men pose a risk greater than that of promiscuous men who don't? The bar on gay men may be seen as unjustified discrimination.
In any event, the decision will be released in a few moments and we'll see then!
6 comments:
There was a time when black ancestry individuals refused to swim in same swimming pools as white individuals
The decisions on who can/cannot donate are based on statistical data, to give us, recipients, the safest blood. It is not just gay men that cannot donate, there are many other exclusion criteria and it is not a right to donate blood, but it is a right to receive the safest blood available and until statistics prove otherwise then they should change the policy.
Hey Mort - isn't the real concern in this decision the claim that the court made that the Charter does not apply to organizations that are not run by the government????? Wow! So what is to stop organizations from restricting membership to, say, people of color etc. . ??
Please advise.
Banning gay men from donating blood is NOT based on statistical data. It is a knee jerk reaction. Gay men in a monogamous relationship are LESS likely to have unsafe blood than promiscuous straight men. There ARE effective ways of screening to ensure a safe blood supply. This ban, however, is overly broad when it bans ALL gay men.
The fact is that the Charter does NOT apply to organizations that are not run by the government. The Chart ONLY applies to the government, and that's what its supposed to do. Human Rights codes are what stop organizations, and persons, from discriminating.
Yes Anonymous, but is it not only a constitutional law that could guarantee the Human Rights Codes? Otherwise a government would be free to dispense with such laws, or simply fail to enforce them.
Post a Comment