Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Canadian "Rump Rangers" Take Note: Sexually Active Gay Men No Longer Allowed To Donate Blood Or Organs In Canada


Just when I thought that Canada was about to completely cave in to political correctness and become a full-blown Soviet republic, surprise! A Canadian bureaucracy experiences an outbreak of common sense.

According to a story published on January 7th, 2008 by CBC News, Health Canada has barred sexually active gay men from donating blood or organs, because of the high risk of transmitting infectious diseases like HIV and hepatitis C and B.

However, CBC's concern is that Health Canada may not have adequately publicized the new restrictions. Dr. Gary Levy, who heads Canada's largest organ transplant program at Toronto's University Health Network, said he was unaware of the new policy on organ donations. "We have not been informed, first of all, that Health Canada is considering this," said Dr. Levy. "Obviously if Health Canada wishes to discuss that, we would hope they would engage all stakeholders."

Dr. Peter Nickerson, director of Transplant Manitoba, which procures organs in that province, said transplant programs must now by law interview family members of the donor as part of the screening process. "We'll be asking about things like travel, history of infectious disease, whether they've [donors] been in jail — that puts you at increased risk," Nickerson said. "Have they been an IV drug abuser in the past? Have they had tattoos? There's a whole list of questions we go through."

They are also asked about the donor's sexual orientation. The donor will be excluded if the donor is a man who had sex with another man in the previous five years.

Health Canada had contracted with the Canadian Standards Association in 2003 to come up with standardized guidelines to ensure the safety of the organ donation system.

Transplant programs have been screening potential donors, but in some cases use organs from people in high-risk groups if they've tested negative for diseases. The new legislation means that practice must stop. A spokeswoman for Health Canada confirmed the new regulations in an e-mail, but the department didn't make anyone available to explain the changes.

Dr. Levy believes organ donors shouldn't be held to the same high standards as blood donors because the stakes for the organ recipient are higher. "Organ donation and the opportunity to save a life at a specific time — we have no substitute therapies," Levy said.

Levy estimates that out of 100 organ donors at his Toronto hospital every year, about seven will be rejected because of the new regulations. About 4,000 Canadians are waiting for an organ transplant.

Some in the gay community complained that the new policy is wrong-headed and that Health Canada should focus on risky sexual behaviours, not sexual orientation. As a matter of fact, gay activists at McGill University in Quebec have been trying to reverse the ban on gays giving blood for two years now.

"I think it's more of an issue of anal sex, anal intercourse, than it is to do with whether someone is gay or straight," said Dean Robinson, a gay activist.

This is not a new policy in the United States. According to Wikipedia, since 1985, the American Red Cross and Food and Drug Administration policies prohibit accepting blood donations from gay/bisexual men, specifically from any male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once, or from IV drug users or recent immigrants from certain nations with high rates of HIV infection. While the continued inclusion of sexually active gay men on the prohibited list has created some degree of controversy, the FDA cites the public policy need to protect the blood supply from HIV and similar diseases as justification for the continued lifetime ban.

Commentary: And one look at information presented by noted researcher and author Erik Holland on the Homosexinfo.org website would tend to justify the ban. A review of the page on Rectal Insertions shows that there are virtually no limits as to what homosexuals will do or will use to derive pleasure from anal stimulation. Here's an excerpt:

Some homosexuals insert foreign bodies into their rectum for pleasure. Occasionally, while moving an object back and forth, a homosexual or his partner may lose his grip on the object and the foreign body gets sucked into the colorectum. In emergency departments, some such objects recovered from the colorectum of homosexuals include soft-drink and other bottles, jars, light bulbs, candles, fruits like bananas and apples; vegetables like cucumbers, onions, potatoes, carrots and turnips; dildos, vibrators, tumblers, a polythene waste trap from the U-bend of a sink, salami, sponge rubber balls, a steer’s horn, baseballs, tennis balls, hard-boiled eggs, sand-filled bicycle inner tubing, an aluminum tube (used by a prisoner to store money and other valuables), broomsticks, broom handles, various types of brushes, ax handles, whip handles, soldering irons, a wood-handled carborundum sharpening stone, glass tubes, frozen pig’s tail, and kitchen items such as spatula, ice pick, and mortar pestle. The typical patient that presents in the emergency department with colorectal foreign objects is a male homosexual; the other patients are women or patients who have been rectally assaulted with a foreign body.

Morgenstern mentioned the recovery of a plastic fist and forearm from the colon of a homosexual. Miller mentioned a homosexual patient with a 150-watt light bulb in his colorectum. Homosexuals presenting with light bulbs in their colon challenge even experienced emergency personnel in San Francisco because breakage of the glass could easily perforate the colon or rectum. In one case, physicians had to fix a light bulb socket onto the end of a stick, insert the stick into the rectum, screw the socket onto the bulb, and finally pull out the bulb. Needless to add, removing stuck rectal objects often requires ingenuity. For instance, in one case, physicians managed to remove a stuck water tumbler by putting rope and molten plaster into the tumbler and using the rope to pull out the tumbler after the plaster had hardened.

Schaupp described the case of a homosexual physician who presented with a stuck rectal object. He pleaded with the surgical resident to not admit him in the hospital but extract the object in the emergency department instead. Normally, such cases are observed for at least 24 hours to make sure that the rectal object did not perforate the rectum. The doctor went home with an unrecognized perforation and developed peritonitis (inflammation of the peritoneum). He called the chief of surgery and blamed it all on the resident. Most likely, the physician had perforated his bowel while he was anally masturbating.

Buzzard and Waxman reported the removal of a plastic vibrator from the rectum of a 65-year-old man who had had it in his rectum for 6 months and even traveled around the world with it.

In emergency departments, homosexuals commonly offer bizarre explanations for stuck rectal objects. They explain such objects in terms of accidental ingestion, deliberate insertion to disimpact feces, or accidents where they slipped and fell on the object lodged in their rectum. Some patients don’t admit to prior homosexual activity and for obvious reasons. Graves et al. described a patient with a large peanut butter glass jar lodged in his rectum. The patient claimed that he was washing his dog in the shower when he slipped and fell on a glass jar, which then entered his rectum. They also described another patient who came to the emergency department complaining of rectal and lower abdominal pain and claiming that he had been abducted and sexually assaulted by several men. This patient had a large vibrator lodged in his rectum. A police investigation determined that no assault had taken place, and that the vibrator had most likely been self-administered. Lo et al. described a 50-year-old man who was seen at an emergency department for abdominal pain. A physical examination revealed peritonitis and an X-ray revealed a shadow of an eel in the abdomen. After further questioning, the patient reported that he had inserted a live eel into his rectum to relieve constipation. The 50 cm-long eel had perforated his rectum and was quickly removed.

The objects homosexuals insert into their rectum are only limited by the capacity of their rectum, not their imagination. For instance, Cooper described a 33-year-old homosexual patient with a 14 inch-long sand-filled bicycle tube in his rectum. He and his partners regularly inserted the sand-filled tubes into each other’s rectum, till one day they lost a tube beyond recovery into the patient’s rectum. Stephens and Taff described a homosexual who had his partner give him an enema with a concrete mix, followed by the insertion of a ping-pong ball to retain the mix. The concrete hardened and the homosexual ended up in an emergency department. The patient refused a psychiatric consultation recommended by the physician. Eckert and Katchis mentioned the practice of inserting gerbils into the rectum for pleasurable scratching sensations.


Another justification for the prohibition against sexually-active men is that anal intercourse is more risky than vaginal intercourse, and since gay men have only two orifices of interest (ass and mouth, no vagina), they are more likely to become infected than heterosexuals, who engage predominantly in vaginal intercourse. In a January 1988 Cosmopolitan article referenced on the Homosexinfo.org site, Dr. Robert Gould explained that vaginal sex in the absence of rough sex was highly unlikely to be responsible for HIV infection. However, this is what he had to say about anal sex: “Anal intercourse is another matter. Because hemorrhoidal vessels are very near the surface of the anus, because the mucosa is delicate, and because the insertion of the penis in an orifice so small and tight is often traumatic, bleeding and/or lacerations may occur. And this is what makes anal intercourse a high-risk activity, regardless of whether the recipient of the penis is a man or a woman, heterosexual or gay.”

The anus simply wasn't designed for the rough-and-tumble of repetitive intercourse, and so the walls aren't as thick as those of the vagina.

So obviously, whoever wrote Leviticus 18:22 knew what the hell he was talking about.

No comments: