Blood seems to be a pretty big deal these days. We're spilling it in Iraq, baseball players aren't letting theirs get tested, and we might not even be able to give it on this campus.
If the Leonard Carmichael Society (LCS) is not allowed to continue its blood drive on campus it would be an enormous shame. There are dozens of statistics that can be cited here, but what is important is that there are accident victims, cancer patients, and wounded soldiers that need blood.
The argument boils down to the fact of whether or not homosexual men are being discriminated against. Clearly if they are, then a program such as this one should not be allowed under the discrimination policy.
Allowing the drive to happen by adding exemptions to the nondiscrimination policy will only weaken the policy. This however, is entirely irrelevant.
Clearly the word discrimination has many definitions, (including ones with positive connotations), but the best I could find was this one from Princeton's Cognitive Science Laboratory. Discrimination is "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice."
Gay men are not being discriminated against. Any judgments are being made based on risk factors, and the safety of transfusion recipients, not prejudice.
The Red Cross and the FDA have no prejudice against certain behavior, merely the risks it entails.
It is a matter of safety. In the interest of protecting the safety of both the individual and the population, precautions do need to be taken.
The FDA should be taking as many precautions as it possibly can to prevent blood born diseases. When you are staring down a syringe ready to receive the blood from someone you've never met, any rational patient is going to want as many layers of protection as possible.
Thursday's editorial ("Red Cross policy not discriminatory") brings up the subject of discriminating based on nationality. In addition to the West African countries, anyone who has spent significant time in Western Europe cannot give blood.
Sitting in "McDo" on the Champs Elys?©es in Paris, one can order as many chicken nuggets as one wants and not even touch the Big Mac which the FDA considers to be at risk for Mad Cow disease. Yet even so, the individual is at greater risk for contracting the disease and not allowed to donate blood.
This is 'discrimination' based on nationality. It's not the specific 'behavior' of eating the Big Mac, it is merely being French or British. This is also against the nondiscrimination clause of the university.
Even without engaging in this dangerous behavior, one is prevented from donating blood, for a good reason.
Testing blood is not fool proof. Whether a machine can perform a test in 15 minutes or 24 hours it doesn't make a difference. As Dr. Jorge Rios stated in Wednesday's article ("LCS blood drive at risk"), there have been cases of diseases transmitted within the last two years. This is some serious shit.
It may be true that most gay men are in fact engaging in sex with other men, and thus all disqualified from donating blood. And thankfully, many of these men do not have AIDS or HIV, but most British citizens do not have mad cow disease.
Though the Red Cross only lists about seven types of behavior that put someone at risk for HIV and AIDS, there are dozens of other types of behavior that can also put someone at risk. These are merely the most statistically likely. In a game where you're dealing with millions of pints of bloods, I believe in odds.
Being denied the ability to give blood is not something that makes anyone feel great. It can be embarrassing and humiliating. But giving blood is not a god given right. There are many ways an individual can help patients without giving their blood.
If a noble event could not continue because of these complaints I will be disappointed. Blood is a much needed commodity, and methods applied in drawing the blood are meant to safeguard the population, not discriminate.
Justin Craigie is a sophomore majoring in Political Science.
