OPINION & EDITORIAL
There will be blood… donations
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Audience responds to debate (February 13, 2008)
- Clegg no economist, just misguided (February 11, 2008)
- Herald blind on snow (February 11, 2008)
- Szarzynski has facts all wrong (February 8, 2008)
- Right plan, right now (February 1, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Both sides now: Taking on alcohol, religion in Wisconsin penal system (November 17, 2005)
- Campus safety includes sexual health (December 9, 2003)
- ...and the press rolls on (September 10, 2004)
- Don't strike -- fly a flag (March 7, 2003)
- Get in the spirit of giving (December 10, 2003)
by Letters to the Editor
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
In response to “College protests blood drives,” Feb. 6:
San Jose State University has epitomized an irresponsible, counterproductive protest in refusing to participate in blood drives to protest the Food and Drug Administration’s discrimination against homosexuals.
The FDA does, indeed, refuse blood donations from men who admit to having had sexual contact with other men since 1977. It also refuses blood donations from people who have been incarcerated, who have lived in Africa, or who have lived with someone from Africa — in addition to the more socially acceptable (but still discriminatory) refusal to accept blood from would-be donors who have used illegal needle drugs or paid for sexual favors. Gay rights activists would do well to ally themselves with activists fighting xenophobia and racism in combating this policy, which is guilty of both of these, rather than fighting against homophobia alone.
More importantly, this boycott is an unconscionably high risk for a jaw-droppingly low yield. A blood donation can save as many as three lives, and blood loss does not discriminate. A boycott of university blood drives will ultimately deny lifesaving blood to many people who did not write FDA policy — some of whom, indeed, may be gay rights activists themselves. What’s more alarming is that this drastic measure cannot possibly lead directly to a quick amendment of FDA policy. Changing the policy of a federal government program is a lengthy, bureaucratic process that requires action in the court of law. As a general rule, patients in need of blood donations can’t afford to wait that long. The positive outcome of this protest, in the best-case scenario, is more media attention focused on the issue. Activists will have to hope that the attention will be positive enough to counteract the negative public image of the gay community fighting for its rights at the expense of the health of the severely injured.
UW can certainly join this protest in defense of civil liberties, but we will have to answer for perfectly avoidable human deaths.
Courtney Ehlers
UW sophomore, history
cehlers@wisc.edu
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 9:47am):
this isn't about discrimination, it's about stopping the spread of AIDS which, if you haven't heard, is pretty serious. Imagine being a person who receives a blood transfusion only to find out that the blood donor had AIDS and now they do too.
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 10:52am):
So gay men all have AIDS, and are the same as the users of needle drugs, criminals, and prostitutes and their clients? Wow. Only in Madison.
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 12:32pm):
So if a straight guy has AIDS and doesn't know it, he can still give blood?
Erik (February 13, 2008 @ 7:25pm):
@9:47: Did you really just say that? Did you know they test all blood anyway?
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 11:55pm):
They also do not allow cancer survivors to donate blood.
Anonymous (February 18, 2008 @ 9:53pm):
While it is sad that people are not able to receive blood due to a protest they may have gotten that blood and more from willing people who just happen to have had a homosexual encounter. -Blood is screened and plenty of other countries have led by example that this group shouldn't be discriminated against otherwise we should ask all participants about their sexual activities not their sexual partners.
Anonymous (February 25, 2008 @ 4:02pm):
First, everyone who can should give blood. And of course it's appropriate to screen blood for diseases and chemical risks.
But it's cruel to play games about who can and who can't, and unfair to trick people into showing up so that when they are questioned, they can be embarrassed about a limitation they didn't know about--or feel pressured into lying.
Furthermore, it's lulling the public into a false sense of security, that they won't received "tainted gay blood", but some heterosexual man-slut's may be just as damaging.
This article plays the race card needlessly, and ignores the facts about the guidelines.
Anyone who spent 5 years (cumulatively) in EUROPE since 1980 is ineligible--this is buried in the vCJD (Mad Cow) details.
Anyone getting a tattoo in a state that doesn't regulate tattooing has to wait 12 months.
Of course, the local Red Cross actively conceals these guidelines on their web site. You have to dig on the national site to find them:
http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html
To simply say that "anyone who is 17 or older, 110 pounds or more, and healthy can give blood" is simply not true, and is defamatory.
Anonymous (February 25, 2008 @ 4:05pm):
This letter shows poor research--there is no permanent ban on individuals who have been incarcerated, rather, a 12-month DEFERRAL from last incarceration due to concerns of hepatitis.
Geez, even blood drive proponents don't know the rules!
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
