Kissing ‘qualifies as sex’: outrageous claim by Red Cross

Kissing ‘qualifies as sex’: outrageous claim by Red Cross

Kissing or nibbling another man’s ear is enough to ban gay men from donating blood for life, a Red Cross expert has claimed.

The blood supply agency has clung to AIDS myths dispelled more than 20 years ago to defend its blood ban in the Tasmanian anti-discrimination case brought by 25-year-old Michael Cain.

US professor Dr Paul Holland, a former blood source executive testifying for the Red Cross, claimed even digital penetration of the nose or ear would justify the lifetime ban his country imposes on gay men.

That would usually be sufficient to exchange fluid and qualify as sex, Dr Holland told the Tribunal. When asked if that included gay men who had done nothing more than kissing, Holland replied, Yes, sir, because they increase their chance of transmitting an infection such as HIV.

Holland’s testimony contradicts international safe sex messages. According to ACON guidelines kissing is safe because it does not involve semen, vaginal fluid or blood. Saliva, by itself, does not transmit HIV.

AFAO was also surprised by the testimony. “They are not in accord with the science,” AFAO executive director Don Baxter said.

The Red Cross’ lawyer also took a page out of the anti-gay Christian lobby’s strategy stating gay male monogamy was a myth.

The Tribunal has heard a flurry of statistics from the Red Cross based on a New Zealand focus group of 11 couples that appeared to show gay men have 10 times as many partners as heterosexual men.

It’s justifying its current gay blood ban policy using some of the grossest and most offensive myths and stereotypes around, gay activist Rodney Croome told Sydney Star Observer.

Witnesses opposed to the current ban have pointed out that safe sex was more common among gay men than heterosexual men.

Many of the samples in studies cited by the Red Cross are very small, recruited from men at high risk, and explicitly exclude men who practise safe sex in monogamous relationships -” they are not representative of all men who have sex with men, La Trobe Associate Professor Anne Mitchell said.

The hearings then turned to where blood supply dangers exist today, rather than during the early days of the HIV epidemic.

A document was produced showing the Red Cross has ignored recommendations from its own chief epidemiological adviser, Dr John Kaldor, to revise the current ban to include only unsafe homosexual activity. The service also ignored advice from the Australian Medical Association about high risk heterosexual groups.

Former senior government adviser Bill Bowtell said the growing epidemic in the Asia Pacific region posed a risk to the Australian blood supply if heterosexuals were not screened for unsafe sexual activity.

When you ask Australians a straightforward, honest question, you’re likely to get a straightforward, honest answer, Bowtell suggested.

Bioethicist Dr Scott Halpern said the risk of using blood older than 15 days, approximately 13 percent of the Australian supply, was more than 1000 times greater a risk of mortality than HIV infection stemming from unsafe male-to-male sex.

I think we’re talking about a one in 100 risk of death on the one hand with using old blood, and about a one in a million risk of HIV on the other -¦ much rarer than getting struck by lightning, Halpern said.

The hearings will continue until 29 August.

You May Also Like

24 responses to “Kissing ‘qualifies as sex’: outrageous claim by Red Cross”

  1. The restrictions on giving blood are absurd. I don’t know why anybody does it. In the past, they used to PAY for donations. I think it was $50 a pint. I tried doing it once 2 years ago to be a nice guy. All I got for draining my body of a pint of blood was a couple of oreos, a coke, a sticker, and a t-shirt that was made wrong and was WAY too large for me. As for the restrictions, the questionnaire was VERY personal and they ask you the questions by voice in an interview. There are several sexual questions. One question that would have disqualified me was “have you spent more than 3 months in the United Kingdom?” I said no, even though I was there for 8 months. After all the trouble I went through, I wasn’t about to waste my time completely by not doing it.
    I just noticed that the previous poster mentioned unsafe sex in the last 3 months. That is not what is on the questionnaire. They ask if you have had even ONE homosexual experience in your entire life. I haven’t since the age of 6, but if I said yes, that would have disqualified me.
    Bottom line is, the questionnaire is extremely long, insulting, unrealistic, and they don’t even show any appreciation for your gift.
    I will never donate blood again. It is not worth the grief.

  2. This is ridiculous, I think there is nothing but confused sexuality, the worst homophobic are gay, and confused about their sexuality. This US specialist, doctor, moron, dick head and the church priests are not exception. The religion had already done that, and now Red Cross is going the same way. Alienating themselves from some perfectly normal and kind people who are willing to help. In today’s world no one wants to help if you don’t want their help. So Red Cross comes out as a looser.

    Though the argument is silly as they find out if you are gay or not by asking you, so what can they do if you say you are not gay and you are straight, and if you are upfront enough to admit your sexuality why wont you say if you had unsafe sex in the last three months.

  3. About 2 years ago I completly stopped donating money to the red cross because of the on-going discrimination.

  4. Further – how frustrating it was when I read in a local North-West Tasmanian newspaper (2007) about the shortage of blood, and how admirable it was for players from a local football club all went to red-cross and donated blood products. 17-19 year old footy jocks, just returned from end-of-season trip to Melbourne and donating blood. What happens on footy trips in the ‘Big City’?? I bet there was more than kissing going on. But its ok – they are straight.

  5. There is absolutley no logic to the arguments that Red Cross are presenting. I can’t beleive Red Cross are even bothering to waste their charity money to hire Lawyers and provide witnesses for such a pathetic argument. Unbeleiveable really. I agree with the other people commenting – I will never give money to Red Cross again, and never give my time to help with door-knocks again. And no way will I buy their useless first-aid products. Red Cross really have dug themselves a hole.

  6. I have a family member who worked for the red cross in the uk and in that time (not so long ago) the red cross was almost broke, cut backs all over the place and so desparate for cash. If however they go down the route of the above report they will sink and fast,They do alot of first aid training with business which I have done with them on several occasions for my work, some of which was totally useless. Regarding religion most people in the uk don’t have any interest in religion as they can see it for the con, brainwashing & abuse it dishes out, hense why so many churches are closing down, becoming private homes, clubs etc
    can’t happen quickly enough.

  7. Wow, I think the red cross will certainly feel the flow-on effects of this one. I used to give blood i can’t anymore (ditch the bitch, make the switch). I used to give money, I won’t anymore (based on long term mismanagement and squander on their part and now this. Time to find a new charity.

  8. It’s pretty pathetic that such a respected organization would make such an unsubstantiated and unscientific claim.
    People need proper education not not misinformation based solely on stereotypes.

    I think the Red Cross should be sued for such a claim !

  9. Oh my god what a bunch of bloody wankers! to think i used to traipse the streets to get donations for this homophobic organisation. If they think i am ever going to give them another cent in my lifetime they can damn well forget it!
    Down with the red cross!!!!!!!!!

  10. If this “Professor” (of what, from where?)was defending some bigotted US fundamental religious sect, I could undersatnd his comments. That the Red Cross has retained him to defend their Dark Age policy of excluding gay people from donating blood is reprehensible.

    Obviously the RC agree with this position.
    Besides wanting to donate blood, we should ALL think twice about donating money or services to this incredibly backward cowboy outfit.

  11. I am confused too Ross. The above report says, “the Red Cross’ lawyer also took a page out of the anti-gay Christian lobby’s strategy stating gay male monogamy was a myth,” and from that you get, “The study shows male monogamy is a myth. So, if it is, who are all the heterosexual males having -˜relations’ with if not women?”?

    Anyway, the answer seems quite simple. Instead of asking a person’s sexuality, simply ask if they have engaged in any of the high risk activities or if they are aware that they are HIV+.

  12. I am confused. The study shows male monogamy is a myth. So, if it is, who are all the heterosexual males having ‘relations’ with if not women? This is my dilemma – who are the heterosexual men, also obviously not capable of monogamy based on the y chromosome (I assume both gay male and heterosexual men have that, but seems my learning is not at the level of these studies) having relations with? Is it men? Animals? Trees? Someone please explain this idiocy, because it is crazy.

  13. I might be straight, but I’d be more than happy to have anyone’s (healthy) blood, regardless of who they have sex with, let alone snog! And vice versa…It’s a real travesty when politics and so called ‘morality’ prevent health and welfare services being informed by good science.

  14. UPCP: How do you know that “SO many hetro (sic) men cheat on their wives, girlfriends etc.,” and what is the “etc”? Sheep? Holdens? Our culture is undoubtedly a homophobic one and the Red Cross trial is one of the more disgraceful examples of it, but it is hardly helpful if our response is always going to be these jejune heterophobic rants.

  15. Stupid wankers! Bloody Red Cross! Gee, it’s funny how SO many hetro men cheat on their wives, girlfriends etc. Some of these hetro males are the MOST diseased -infected hoes on the planet! Sure, we would all like to help give blood and what not, but with these kind of idiots incharge at the Red Cross it really makes it tough – and it makes me feel sick.

  16. awesome!!! that’s both at once hilarious and scary!! — their homophobic intolerance drive the Red Cross further and further down the drain of irrelevance — in the US blood banks pay for and test their donors for blood, while in Australia blood banks expect to get the best blood for nothing and then throw 95% of it away when it goes bad; whilst hospitals routinely use transfusions in cases where there is no need — increasing risk of complications to the patient, not to mention hugely escalated risks of transmitting other diseases.

  17. With respect, Oliver, why are you always such a plonker? An awful lot of gay men are going to need blood transfusions in the future. For example, the incidence of Burkitt’s lymphoma is increased approximately 200- to 300-fold in patients with HIV infection. Burkitt’s lymphoma is the most aggressive of cancers; it can take you from healthy to dead in a month and may double in size every 24 hours. The treatment involves very intensive chemotherapy over six months, which in turn kills all the red and white blood cells, and requires regular blood transfusions. Burkitt’s used to be relatively uncommon, but the number of diagnosed cases at St. Vinnies is slowly increasing.

  18. Im not giving my blood to end up saving the life of some Stupid Hetero letting them live longer.

  19. If there was any doubt before that the Red Cross gay blood ban is antiquated and based on homophobic stereotypes, that doubt has now been swept away by the stomach-turning tactics of Red Cross lawyers and the tsunami of reason from the witnesses for the complainant. For shame, Red Cross!

  20. Oh dear, what an idiot US professor Dr Paul Holland is. I should think that even the Kev’s and Kylene’s of Kyogle would know by now that kissing is safe. Why didn’t he just come out and say, ‘we don’t want any of them filthy homo’s blood’? I also think that instead of politicising a service with such extremely homophobic lies, the RC should be considering how important their product is to their clients in need of a transfusion, especially when it’s in such short supply.

  21. Your welcome!! I mean we’re sorry!!!! We had to ship those rat bastards out somewhere!!!