More Canadian University Political Correctness Run Amok?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher

In Canada you are screened before you give to see if you are eligible. Is the US system so monumentally retarded that they take the blood and then ask you the questions which determine if they can use it?

That was the reason for my comment. Why take the donation if you have no intention of using it (and why donate)?

[Patroklos]

Then why would you give blood (if you know it isn't acceptable)? Social activity?

So they don't have to explain to people that they have AIDS. Or whatever.

You pretend like it is different, but it is not.

It is not a law, it's a rule by the blood collection agencies that both the US and Canada follows: gay men cannot donate blood.

It is different in that you wouldn't be made a public exeption and have to "explain yourself" as you say if you don't want to.

That was the reason for my comment. Why take the donation if you have no intention of using it (and why donate)?

No, they pre-screen you before hand and then take your blood regardless. The screening is for them to decide whether or not to use your blood, not whether or not they will allow you to donate.

That was the reason for my comment. Why take the donation if you have no intention of using it (and why donate)?

So people are not ostresized. Or so they don't have to unwittingly disclose a health problem in part by being seen not to donate.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Patroklos

No, they pre-screen you before hand and then take your blood regardless. The screening is for them to decide whether or not to use your blood, not whether or not they will allow you to donate.

That is retarded.

So people are not ostresized. Or so they don't have to unwittingly disclose a health problem in part by being seen not to donate.

I don't donate and nobody suspects me of having a communicable disease.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos


So they don't have to explain to people that they have AIDS. Or whatever.


It is different in that you wouldn't be made a public exeption and have to "explain yourself" as you say if you don't want to.

That's not how it was when I was in the states. They very clearly have you fill out a form before you give blood.

So people are not ostresized. Or so they don't have to unwittingly disclose a health problem in part by being seen not to donate.

Do you have a link to this policy? Because it certainly isn't national, and it strikes me as insanely stupid which, in turns, leads me to believe it is a southern US policy...

[snoopy369]

Here, they ask you various questions, and let you know that your answers will allow or disallow the blood being used. I think that they would, in theory, allow you to donate if you wanted to anyway, they just wouldn't use the blood afterwards - but at least they do tell you that it won't be permitted.

The blood rules are a bit annoying, but they are understandable from the RC's point of view - they cannot take the chance of blood being dangerous, and cannot guarantee that their tests will show up things like AIDS and Hep C 100% of the time - there are something like 0.1% false negatives, which means a relatively high likelihood of someone getting an infected sample when you consider the millions of blood donations. The place where I've given blood before, they ask you as well whether you have had many female partners (and exclude you as well based on that), though I don't recall the specific exclusion criteria.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Here, they ask you various questions, and let you know that your answers will allow or disallow the blood being used. I think that they would, in theory, allow you to donate if you wanted to anyway, they just wouldn't use the blood afterwards - but at least they do tell you that it won't be permitted.

The blood rules are a bit annoying, but they are understandable from the RC's point of view - they cannot take the chance of blood being dangerous

It's impossible to not take the chance on the blood being dangerous...all blood has the potential to be dangerous.

and cannot guarantee that their tests will show up things like AIDS and Hep C 100% of the time - there are something like 0.1% false negatives, which means a relatively high likelihood of someone getting an infected sample when you consider the millions of blood donations.

If they were serious about this, they'd ban African-Americans from donating for statistically higher incidences of HIV/AIDS.

That would be too blatant an act of discrimination, so instead they just keep ****ting on the gays.

FWIW, the real numbers are as follows:
False negative: 0.003% chance (for the math challenged, this is massively smaller than 0.1).
False positive: 0.0004%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_test

[chequita guevara]

Now that I recall, they do ask if you've had sex with a man when you give blood.

[Patroklos]

That's not how it was when I was in the states. They very clearly have you fill out a form before you give blood.

Nothing I said precludes you filling out a form beforehand.

Do you have a link to this policy? Because it certainly isn't national, and it strikes me as insanely stupid which, in turns, leads me to believe it is a southern US policy...

I experianced this during Red Cross drives in college and Army drives at work. The army drives make sense, because it would keep homosexuals from unwittingly outing themselves (and be considered "asking").

If you think it is stupid for people to have to lie about or unwanting declare why they can't give blood, thats your perogative. What it actually does is keep people form being peer pressured to donate AND the samples then having to be tested (expensively) to be discovered unusable.

[MrFun]

Re: More Canadian University Political Correctness Run Amok?

Originally posted by CrONoS

http://www.eclectecon.net/2008/11/more-canadian-university-political-correctness-run-amok.html

funny and sad. Show how low are university students.

Stop being a whining sissy about political correctness. Man up.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
Now that I recall, they do ask if you've had sex with a man when you give blood.

I've been giving regularly... the question, as I recall, is "since 1977, have you had sexual contact with another male, even once?"

-Arrian

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Patroklos
If you think it is stupid for people to have to lie about or unwanting declare why they can't give blood, thats your perogative. What it actually does is keep people form being peer pressured to donate AND the samples then having to be tested (expensively) to be discovered unusable.

So they don't test donated blood? They take the word of the donor that everything is okay? I doubt it.

[Asher]

In Canada, IIRC, it's "in the past 5 years, have you hsex sexual contact with another male?" or something similar.

[Felch]

Re: Re: More Canadian University Political Correctness Run Amok?

Originally posted by MrFun
Stop being a whining sissy about political correctness. Man up.

I'm with MrFun on this. CrONoS, you need to go buy yourself a shotgun and take care of this.

As far as the Red Cross screening the blood and everything, yeah, it's pretty stupid to exclude gays. I don't think those rules have changed in the past 20 years.

[Patroklos]

So they don't test donated blood? They take the word of the donor that everything is okay? I doubt it.

No. If you donate and disqualify yourself (either through the screening or the sticker I mentioned), they just toss it without wasting time testing it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos


No. If you donate and disqualify yourself (either through the screening or the sticker I mentioned), they just toss it without wasting time testing it.

- All blood is tested. If it isn't, the US is worse than most third world countries.
- "waste time" testing it? Why would it be a waste of time when 99.999% of them will be HIV free?