Archive for January, 2008

Why Canada needs more common sense

Thursday, January 24th, 2008

The topic is one I have written about several times; the entrenched homophobic blood and organ policies in Canada.  There was a link sent to me from a friend via twitter, on the Global and Mail website entitled Smitherman blasts donor rules for gays.  I didn’t particularly like the reporting and wanted to know more about what Smitherman had said and look at the comments and to be honest I am appaulled.

m clement hall from Canada writes: Given a choice of death or one of Smitherman’s organs, I’d go for death every time!

Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Frankly, if the government of Canada is going to be exclusive, I will write specifically on my own donor card that in no way shape or form shall any of my body parts go to a caucasian male adult.

Fred Forest from London, Ontario, Canada writes: …Gay people should consider that no one is interested in their sexual orientation, except other gay people.

G len from Halifax, Canada writes:(in regards to Mrs. Whiggins) Take your fanatacism and hatred to the streets of vancouver please!

None of these people have done any research, none have bothered to talk to Health Canada.  they just take this as an opportunity to spew the vile nastiness with the knowledge no one can track them down.  Cowards.  The frightening this all these losers have a vote…disgusting

Share

Art Geek

Thursday, January 24th, 2008

Apparently this was on slashdot yesterday, but a co-workers sent it to me this morning.  It appeals to the artist and geek in me.

Art Geek

Share

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day…

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008

…Give him a loan to buy a boat and he can feed his whole village.

So a lot of what I do on this blog is bitching. I bitch about my government and being discriminated against. I bitch about movies and games, I bitch a lot but the reality is I have it very easy and I know it. Just sometimes I forget. It takes something pretty special to shock me out of my self-pity. This website did it. Kiva.org

It was mentioned in a presentation by Seth Godin today and I was absolutely amazed. People can donate money which is loaned to a person in a developing country who is trying to start, or grow a business. The person is expected to repay the loan usually within a year People who donate get a profile page and updated on the people who they donated the money to. You can see how your money changes someone’s life!

I just signed up. http://www.kiva.org/lender/dave7507

Here is former president Bill Clinton explaining it.

And the President of Kiva, Premal Shah.

Share

If you talk the talk…

Monday, January 21st, 2008

Then don’t be surprised if it bites you in the ass.  The Canadian Blood services has a link posted on their homepage entitled Patient safety is the overriding principle as Canadian Blood Services researches MSM policy. In which they state that,

 ”Quite simply, we’re not making value judgements – the overriding principle is to protect patients.”

However they are making a value judgement because earlier in their posting they state,

“Blood operators around the world are faced with the fact that there are pathogens for which there are no tests, or as is the case with the AIDS virus – for which there is a limitation to the available test. Even though our test for HIV is state of the art, there is a short time frame, right after acquisition of the virus, that it is not detectable.”

So if HIV is detectable except for a brief period of time when a user is initially infected, why isn’t the question, ” Have you had MSM in the last 6 months?”  or “Do you engage in anal sex?”  Why is the question is, “Male donors: Have you had sex with a man, even one time since 1977?”

Share

Cloverfield: Post 911 Blair Witch

Saturday, January 19th, 2008

The problem with copying a stylistic feature of another film is that forever more you will be compare to that film.  So the move by Cloverfield to utilize the shaky hand-held camera technique that made the Blair Witch such a hit was a gutsy move.  However it wasn’t big on plot, which while more realistic made me want to know more.  I hope they don’t make a sequel however, since that would ruin it.

Blair Witch Project had this crazy internet hype about this supposedly “found” video long before the movie was actually released.  While Cloverfield uses the same “found tape” idea, it lacked the same crazy hype.  The other big difference is in Cloverfield we actually see the monster, where in BWP it remained a mystery and that much more scarey.

I’m not even going to bother to describe the monster, except to say it was okay. I overheard someone in the theatre on the way out mention seeing it drop into the water during one of the scenes of the couple on Coney Island.  So if you read this before seeing it, keep an eye out for it.

The 911 references are unmistakeable with the same billowing dust and smoke we all remember, the “it came out of nowhere” idea.  The complete ineffectiveness of the military…

All in all I thought the film was good.  Made me jump a few times, kept me interested and made me want more.  Cloverfield isn’t so much about the story, as it is about the way the story is told.

Oh ya… It has a very Chinese ending.  Think of how Chinese films usually end and you will know how this one ends.

Share

You have got to be kidding me.

Friday, January 18th, 2008

 This is from the CBC article Students want screening of blood donors changed.

Dr. Margaret Fearon, executive director of medical microbiology at the blood agency. She said students are mistaken to see the policy as a gay rights issue.

“People who receive blood have a right to safe blood. People do not have a right to donate blood. It’s a privilege, really.”

A privilege? Then stop fucking begging for blood and whining stores are low if it is such a fucking privilege.  The truth of the matter while people have the right to clean blood, they do not have the right to decriminate against me unless my blood is not clean.

Not only that but if the CBS wants people to have the right to clean blood then they should also have the right to store their own blood and donate to family members. Period.

Share

Some thought-provoking ads

Thursday, January 17th, 2008

blood4

blood3

blood2

blood1

Olympics 2

Olympics

Poverty

Share

Letting the fox in the henhouse

Wednesday, January 16th, 2008

The Toronto Police Services Board is having a special meeting where Tom Smith, a rep for Taser international will be presenting his arguement on why Toronto should equip it’s officers with tasers.

I wonder if they will invite Robert Dziekanski’s mother Zofia Cisowski to the meeting to talk about how wonderful tasers are?

Share

No “fag” blood please, and the organs…well maybe.

Tuesday, January 15th, 2008

Pissed off about the organ donation thing I wrote Health Canada to find out what was going on.  Hell, I have been an organ donor since I would get a driver’s lisence so for them to say I am suddenly ineligible seemed ridiculous.  Here is the response sent to me by Catherine Parker, the manager of the Policy and Promotion Division :

Dear Mr. Hamel

Thank you for your email inquiry regarding the January 7, 2008, CBC news story on organ donation (Sexually active gay men no longer allowed to donate organs). It is in unfortunate that this story was published with so much inaccurate information contained within.

Risks in transplantation are multiple with the primary concern the possible transmission of an infectious disease from the donor to recipient. Calls for Health Canada to enhance federal regulation in transplantation began in the early 1990s. In 1996, Health Canada assembled a group of independent experts in the field of transplantation to develop safety criteria or standards. for transplantation and also entered into a contract with the Canadian Standards Association to have them published.

Following extensive public consultation, these were published by the Canadian Standards Association as national standards in June 2003. Health Canada then proceeded with the drafting of regulations under the Food and Drugs Act, which reference key portions of these standards, thereby making them mandatory. Following extensive consultation, the regulations were published in June, 2007 and came into force on December 7, 2007.

Donor suitability assessment is critical to transplantation safety and is a key part of the regulations. The potential donor’s available medical records must be reviewed for risk factors, clinical evidence, and physical evidence of transmissible disease. A donor medical history interview or questionnaire is administered to the donor’s next of kin. Rigid testing for infectious diseases is also required. Certain medical conditions ( eg. multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and viral diseases such as mumps, West Nile virus, hepatitis B and C virus and HIV) are considered a contraindication to donation due to possible risks to the recipients. Donors are also assessed for risk factors for certain diseases, notably hepatitis B and C and HIV as in rare cases these diseases may be present but undetectable in the donor via either examination or testing. Donors are considered a potential higher risk for these diseases if they:

are a man who has had sex with another man in the preceding 5 years;
have used injection drugs in the preceding 5 years;
have hemophilia and have received human-derived clotting factor concentrates;
have had sex in exchange for money or drugs in the preceding 5 years;
have had, in the preceding 12 months, sex with any persons described above or with a person known or suspected to have HIV, HBV, or HCV; or have been exposed to HIV-, HBV-, or HCV-infected blood;
are current inmates of correctional systems or have been incarcerated for more than 72 consecutive hours in the preceding 12 months;
have had a tattoo, ear or body piercing using shared instruments in the preceding 12 months;
or have had close contact within the preceding 12 months with another person having clinically active viral hepatitis

These risk factors are based on scientific, epidemiological and statistical evidence generated by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and originally published as recommendations in 1994. These CDC recommendations are accepted internationally as risk factors for disease transmission and have been incorporated into regulations in the United States and Europe as well. In Canada the assessment of donors according to these criteria has been in place since the mid 1990’s even in the absence of federal regulations making this mandatory. The CDC recommendations have been reviewed and updated as needed. The risk factors which have been incorporated into the CTO regulations, although based on the CDC recommendations have been reviewed and modified by the Canadian working group of experts to reflect current scientific evidence.

However due to the life saving circumstances which make some transplants urgent and the limited number of donor organs available, it was necessary to establish a mechanism that permits organs not meeting all regulatory requirements to be used in some circumstances. The Exceptional Distribution section of the regulations allows their use, provided the transplant physician, based on clinical judgement, authorizes the distribution and the recipient has given informed consent. Hence organs from donors with these risk factors may still be used under this provision.

On January 7, 2007, the CBC aired a piece on its evening news which erroneously stated that these Health Canada regulations ban homosexual males from being organ donors. In fact all Canadians, including gay men are eligible to be organ donors. There is nothing in these regulations preventing donations from gay men. The regulations state that all donors must be assessed for risk factors that could indicate a higher possibility of infectious disease transmission, even if the possibility of such is low. One of these risk factors pertains to a man who has had sex with another man within the past 5 years. If a donor has this risk  factor, the organs can still be donated and used but the recipient must be informed of the risk factor and give their consent first. This is not a new requirement. This has been standard transplantation practice in Canada for over a decade. There have also been suggestions that these regulations have been developed “in secret” by Health Canada. Nothing could be further from thetruth. The regulations were developed with the transplant community to bring ongoing best practices into regulation.  Extensive consultation on these regulations took place over an eleven year period prior to their finalization.

I am providing you with two links. The first is to the Cells, Tissues and Organs section of the Health Canada website which provides additional information on this project and its development. The second is to a recent news release by the Trillium Gift of Life Network.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/brgtherap/reg-init/cell/index_e.html
http://www.giftoflife.on.ca/page.cfm?id=F97F1751-94B5-4373-94B0-7AA953B2B704

This presents a few issues,  first of all in organ donation time is of the essence, so do they really have time to locate my family and find out if I am gay or not? (Probably they could just tell from my stunning fashion sense).  And if someone can refuse my organs because I am gay, can they refuse someone else’s if they come from someone black? (also a high-risk group but the prejudice is pretty apparent)  Does that push that patient to the bottom of the list?  Do they ask the next eligible patient if they want my organs?  What other information is passed along to the potential recipient? 

I think it is also interesting that one of the determinants is “have been incarcerated for more than 72 consecutive hours in the preceding 12 months.”   Probably because if you have been incarcerated for more than 72 conecutive hours you get moved from the usual holding cell/drunk tank to the general inmate population. If that isn’t a statement about the prevalence of inmate rape I don’t know what is. 

I’ve decided that I will do a little more research, especially since the blood donation discrimination had been going on for years.

Share

What human rights?

Tuesday, January 15th, 2008

China doesn’t exactly have the best human-rights record.  In fact, it is down right awful.  Amid the child labour and human trafficing, the capital punishment and organ retrieval you can add Rodney King style beatings to the list.

Wei Wenhua was the general manager of construction company, Shuli Architectural Engineering; additionally, he was a blogger. He was beaten to death in Wanba, Tianmen, Hubei, after attempting to film Chinese authorities clashing with villagers.

According to Chinese media reports, Wei Wenhua was beaten to death by a mob of more than 30 “urban management officers”, or cheng guan, in Hubei’s Wanba Village on January 7 as he attempted to take photos with his mobile phone of a dispute involving villagers and local authorities.

The Wei Wenhua Affair, vaguely reminiscent of the Sun Zhigang story back in 2003, could become one of the most important China stories of 2008. Some media and Web users are already calling for the disbanding of the urban management system.

 No one has been charged with Wei’s murder.

Share