D
- Status
G
geezerbob
Guest
These people have conveniently short memories. The restriction on blood donors was imposed after innocent people contracted HIV from transfusions. And these folks are in charger of higher education? 
H
Hastrman
Guest
I personally wouldn’t want any blood from a college campus, but maybe that’s me.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I couldn’t get the link to work, which probably is due to the computer I am using, so if I repeat information in it I apologize.
I am not sure what to think of the issue, but I do think the university is directing their displeasure at the wrong people.
Hastrman:
The U.S. ban on gay donations was enacted in 1985 when the only test for HIV was new and its reliability unproven. Tests for the virus have been refined to such degree that, last year, the three most important organizations relating to blood donations in the U.S. called for the ban to be lifted. The FDA refused, citing concern that even a one in a million chance is too high.
I am not sure what to think of the issue, but I do think the university is directing their displeasure at the wrong people.
In the Bay Area and in Wisconsion (I am not sure about nationwide) 20% of blood comes from high school and college students. Only 3% of adults in the US donate blood.
D
didymus
Guest
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
So. Essentially what they are saying is that we will further strain the blood supply by making it harder to give blood?
Where is the compassion? I guess being “politically correct” means you can throw compassion out the door.
Where is the compassion? I guess being “politically correct” means you can throw compassion out the door.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I still couldn’t get the link to work, so I went to the website of the San Jose Mercury-News and poked around. It looks like the story got moved out of the Breaking News category and re-filed under Education. Here is the link to the story I found.
mercurynews.com/education/ci_8137248?nclick_check=1
If it isn’t the same article, it still is a very good read.
K
kristie_m
Guest
I’m a local and was really discouraged to see this. The FDA isn’t going to suffer for this…the people who need the blood will. My blood bank also has a policy for turning away someone who has recently been pregnant. Should I stop donating all together because they are discriminating against someone who has had a baby in the last six weeks? It’s all about risk factors…this is not an issue of morality.
D
Daddums
Guest
Here’s the reasoning behind screening procedures:
The small risk of HIV infection from a blood transfusion is due to a “window period.” During this period, newly infected individuals may not test positive for the AIDS virus. However, with the recent introduction of an additional test for HIV (the HIV-1 p24 antigen test,) the average “window period” has been reduced to approximately 16 days. Pre-donation screening procedures designed to identify people whose behavior puts them at risk of HIV infection, help prevent donation by HIV-infected individuals during the "window period."
psbc.org/need/adverse.htm
Here’s the school’s response to the reasoning (from the article):
‘‘When it comes right down to it, we aren’t arguing the science behind the FDA position. We aren’t qualified to do that,’’ Karr said. ''We just have a fundamental problem with what actually happens in these blood drives. …If it affects any individual on our campus, then we will stand up and protect our policy.’’
I interpret this quote as meaning, “We don’t contest the FDA’s reasoning but it doesn’t matter. We consider gay rights to be more important than issues of public health and safety.” I’m open to a more charitable interpretation, but I’m not seeing it.
Daddums
D
Dale_M
Guest
Yes, there is a window period, but the objection being raised is that the pre-donation screening is overly broad. Logically it should restrict people who have engaged in risk activity in the past month or six months or whatever. But current guidelines restrict any gay man who engaged in any act of male/male sex in the past 30 years. This seems to be what has upset some people.
Yes, I agree it is a quote which doesn’t make a lot of sense. I think he should have chosen his words with greater care.
My guess, and this is just a guess (I’m looking for a charitable interpretation), is that he intended to say that he would allow the medical and scientific people to argue the science and health aspects of blood risks. He wasn’t qualified to speak on such matters, but he was qualified to speak on how individuals at the university were affected by the policy.
But if that is what he wanted to say, he could have done a better job of it.
BTW, didymus, I finally got your second link to work!
Yes, the two articles are different - most noticeably different is the presence of the strange quote by the university associate vice-president, Carr or Karr.
(the two articles even spell his name differently! )
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
And this is why in our family we use our own blood if something is scheduled and have a list of emergency donors for if something happens. NO OUTSIDE BLOOD IS TO BE ADMINISTERED and we have cards that state this.
B
beckycmarie
Guest
No kidding. If there’s no HIV, chances are it’s full of bong resin.
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
I was denied giving blood when I was a teenager because I had had mononucleosis.
I’m not allowed to give blood here in Australia because I lived in the UK from 1981 to 1985, just before the mad cow hysteria was at its height. Since it takes about 10 years for mad cow to develop, it is probably safe to say that I am past the risk period but I’m still not allowed to give blood.
They always try to err on the side of safety. It doesn’t matter what the risk is.
I’m with Hastrman, no blood from college campuses. Besides HIV, there’s Hepatitis A, B & C, plus who knows what drugs they have been taking, speed, crack, whatever. It will all be in the blood.
My church in Houston used to have blood drives. They would set up in the hall and you gave blood after Mass. Perhaps churches in SF could do this to counter the drop in supply.
I’m not allowed to give blood here in Australia because I lived in the UK from 1981 to 1985, just before the mad cow hysteria was at its height. Since it takes about 10 years for mad cow to develop, it is probably safe to say that I am past the risk period but I’m still not allowed to give blood.
They always try to err on the side of safety. It doesn’t matter what the risk is.
I’m with Hastrman, no blood from college campuses. Besides HIV, there’s Hepatitis A, B & C, plus who knows what drugs they have been taking, speed, crack, whatever. It will all be in the blood.
My church in Houston used to have blood drives. They would set up in the hall and you gave blood after Mass. Perhaps churches in SF could do this to counter the drop in supply.
D
Daddums
Guest
I’m not sure your interpretation is any more charitable than mine as it merely suggests willful ignorance rather than deliberate disregard of the risks. The argument that the policy is overly broad might have merit, but I did not see that raised as the objection anywhere in the article. I am not completely clear on the precise meanings much of the vocabulary that has emerged from the gay community but my understanding is the term gay would always assume inclusion of those who are actively gay. I therefore assumed that the school’s objection included the barring of sexually active gays. If that is not the case, then the article is not very clear and was very poorly written.Yes, there is a window period, but the objection being raised is that the pre-donation screening is overly broad. Logically it should restrict people who have engaged in risk activity in the past month or six months or whatever. But current guidelines restrict any gay man who engaged in any act of male/male sex in the past 30 years. This seems to be what has upset some people.
Yes, I agree it is a quote which doesn’t make a lot of sense. I think he should have chosen his words with greater care.
My guess, and this is just a guess (I’m looking for a charitable interpretation), is that he intended to say that he would allow the medical and scientific people to argue the science and health aspects of blood risks. He wasn’t qualified to speak on such matters, but he was qualified to speak on how individuals at the university were affected by the policy.
But if that is what he wanted to say, he could have done a better job of it.
BTW, didymus, I finally got your second link to work!
Yes, the two articles are different - most noticeably different is the presence of the strange quote by the university associate vice-president, Carr or Karr.
(the two articles even spell his name differently! )
Daddums
P
puzzleannie
Guest
I think hepatitis sufferers, new mothers, people with low iron, and other classes who are being discriminated against by the American Red Cross and the FDA need to get their own lobbyists and class action lawyers. Smell da money.
D
didymus
Guest
The very first time I gave blood I had to have them back up to one of the hepatitis questions: have you slept with anyone in the last six months who has had hepatitis?
At first I’d said no but then remembered that my wife told me she had had he before we met. Well! The techs and the nurse put their heads together, I called my wife to see if she can remember what type it was (she can’t). The tech actually asked, “Well, have you slept together in the last six months?”
I felt like telling her that by an odd coincidence middle-aged married folk have sex exactly every six months but I behaved.
Finally they decided to take my blood. I was on the verge of being mightily ticked off but instead I decided I was glad they were so careful.
Now they’re going to throw that overboard in the name of political correctness?
S
Steadfast_love
Guest
First time I donated blood I misunderstood the question.
Q: Have you ever engaged in sex…
A: No.
Q: …in exchange for drugs?
Q: Have you ever engaged in sex…
A: No.
Q: …in exchange for drugs?
A
ALLGIRLS
Guest
I know they ask men and women different questions, but do they specifically ask if you’re homosexual? I’ve always been asked (in addition to the “sex for drugs” question) if I’ve had sex w/ a man who’s had sex w/ another man (in the last 6 months). Do they ask someone’s sexual orientation, or just “have you had sex w/ another man?” That’s behavior, and lots of behaviors preclude one from giving blood (like having a baby or using drugs or having sex w/ someone w/ hepatitis). It’s not discriminatory. No one has a “right” to give blood. Our country has gotten so politically correct that people confuse rights w/ privileges and opportunities. If this policy is rescinded, then someone does contract hiv from a blood transfusion, I predict not only a huge lawsuit, but people being scared of getting a transfusion (like in the '80s before the screening procedures).
In Christ,
Ellen
In Christ,
Ellen
K
kristie_m
Guest
That’s an excellent point. I think that the same questionaire is used for both men and women, and you’re absolutely right. Someone needs to let the administration of SJSU know that it’s not about what we call ourselves, it’s all about how we behave. And certain behaviors pose higher risks of contracting–and passing on–disease. The health and well being of the public should outweigh political correctness.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Ellen, the blood bank at which I donate asks, if male, have you ever had sex with another man since 1978. I think medical people tend to shy away from the label homosexual since there are lots of guys who have sex with other men, but don’t identify as homosexual. I know that inn HIV/AIDS journal articles a clinical sounding phrase is used instead: Men who have Sex with Men, or MSM.
I agree.
- Status