Kyle Freeman.

Since when is giving blood a human right? This man deliberately lied about his sexual activity in order to give blood – 18 times! Here is a quote from the National Post:

According to court discoveries, Mr. Freeman said he donated blood in 2002 after not donating blood for some time as a “political statement.”

I see. So he stopped giving blood as a political statement, then since that wasn’t getting enough attention, he decided to lie about his risk factors, and start giving blood again. Why? Here’s another quote:

“I felt the benefit of giving blood would outweigh the political position of Blood Services.”

Giving blood is not a right, Mr. Freeman. How dare you put waving the rainbow flag over and above my right to a safe blood supply. I think the National Post editorial has got it right:

Mr. Freeman’s vanity litigation must not be allowed to prevail. Blood donation is not a human right akin to voting, as Mr. Freeman seems to presume. It is an act of civic altruism that permits the lives of sick and injured Canadians to be saved. Yet Mr. Freeman seeks to give blood in a situation where medical professionals have gauged that the medical risk to public health exceeds the medical benefit. Apparently, he believes societal validation of his sexual orientation is more important than public health — that waving the rainbow flag is more important than protecting the blood supply. What a repellent commentary on the excesses of identity politics.

National post story here, National Post editorial here.

Comments on: "A Big Hairy Eyeball Goes To…." (5)

  1. Henry Troup said:

    And, as fas as I know, the Charter doesn’t even enter into private arrangements.

    On the other hand, anyone who believes that in 2009 the automatic disqualification for “have you had sex with another man even once since 1977” is purely about medical risk probably believes in the tooth fairy.

  2. I think it is about medical risk. Keeping the blood supply clean is critically important to everybody’s health. A man having sex with another man puts him at high risk for AIDS – if he chooses that behaviour, he also chooses to disqualify himself from giving blood.

  3. You could look at the Citizen op-ed by the legal counsel of the AIDS Society yesterday. The “1977” part is what isn’t related to risk, but to old paranoia. If the question was “in the last year”, it would likely be science plus caution. 32 years – that’s something else.

  4. Surely you aren’t defending this guy’s actions, are you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: