If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Orlando Sentinel)   $1 billion in aid to Japan has reached... the pockets of the Red Cross   (orlandosentinel.com) divider line 341
    More: Obvious, Red Cross, Japan, American Red Cross, Tokyo University, NHK, Fukushima, pockets, emergency management  
•       •       •

21822 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Apr 2011 at 5:32 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



341 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-04 02:30:54 AM
I know there were issues with the American Red Cross following 9/11 and (possibly?) Katrina. My family was involved with them for a few years as well, but due to some weird IP contract dropped out.

So I figure that one of the more efficient donations is to the Japanese Red Cross (why Cross in Japan? they aren't a Christian nation....)

my 2c
 
2011-04-04 02:32:51 AM
mikdeetx

Even Red Cross execs can be needy. I saw one driving a $40000 car and it irked me. Couldn't find a $18000 Hyundai to do the same job?

.


I hope you're joking. Not everyone driving a $40-60K car is an executive of a company nearly as big as the Red Cross.
 
2011-04-04 02:55:06 AM
I haven't given to the Red Cross since they gave Hepatitis C to tens of thousands of people, repeatedly denied that AIDs could be transmitted by blood transfusions, used up all their old stock of blood products that weren't heat-treated, etc., etc.
 
2011-04-04 03:29:50 AM
The issue at hand here is simple. The Red Cross isn't welcome in japan and does not operate there.

They were the wrong agency to send relief money through.


Who was the right agency?
Believe it or not, Sony Online Entertainment can transfer funds directly to Sony Victor Japan's.

My money is already on their feet and in their tummies, where's yours?
 
2011-04-04 03:31:17 AM
And all I've done is help fold paper cranes at a university relief event. I feel kinda lousy for not donating, but I have a feeling the cranes (and the photos of the good-luck wishes written on the origami paper) will get there faster than the money would.
 
2011-04-04 03:31:35 AM

prjindigo: The issue at hand here is simple. The Red Cross isn't welcome in japan and does not operate there.

They were the wrong agency to send relief money through.


Who was the right agency?
Believe it or not, Sony Online Entertainment can transfer funds directly to Sony Victor Japan's.

My money is already on their feet and in their tummies, where's yours?


Source? When did the Japanese Red Cross become unwelcome?
 
2011-04-04 03:37:15 AM

vlion: I know there were issues with the American Red Cross following 9/11 and (possibly?) Katrina. My family was involved with them for a few years as well, but due to some weird IP contract dropped out.

So I figure that one of the more efficient donations is to the Japanese Red Cross (why Cross in Japan? they aren't a Christian nation....)

my 2c


RTFA. The billion dollars isn't sitting with the American Red Cross, its with the JRC they are holding it while they work out the logistics of where the money is needed and how much.

Also, the Red Cross is not a Christian group nor is the Red Cross meant to represent a Christian symbol, it was in honor of the Swiss that the symbol of a red cross on a white background (the reverse of the Swiss flag) was identified as a protective emblem in conflict areas.
 
2011-04-04 03:47:48 AM

monkeyinafez: The Red Cross is the only non-profit organization congressionally mandated to respond to disasters. They do not receive one cent of federal money. This is intentional because their mission statement does not allow them to discriminate against anyone who needs their assistance and they don't want the politicians getting involved in how they provide aid.

I have been donating blood, plasma, money and time to the Red Cross for over 5 years. I was in the Algiers section of New Orleans after Katrina while we gave out food to people who told us they hadn't seen any other assistance a month after the event. At the time the local authorities told us not to go there because it wasn't safe.

I regularly go to people locally who have lost their homes to fires and help them with their immediate food and shelter needs. We can't provide as much assistance as we used to because our budget is so tight. Close to 30% of the staff in the local office has been laid off over the last few years; all the work has been picked up by volunteers.

We work with a lot of partner organizations, including the Salvation Army, Southern Baptist Convention, St. Vincent DePaul and other local groups. They can provide some of the types of aid that we can't, e.g. replacement clothing and furniture. We don't charge anyone any money for our disaster relief services. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar.

What happens after major events like the Haiti earthquake or Japan tsunami is that lots of people give money dedicated to that specific disaster. That's great; the Red Cross tries to use those donations responsibly. But it also means that there is less money available for smaller, but still large impact events. There aren't a ton of people giving money for the floods, fires and tornados that happen every year. But the Red Cross will still respond.

We also provide coffee and snacks to other disaster responders. When there's a big search and rescue event going on, there's a good chance the Red Cross will be there giving coffee and food to the local authorities and volunteers participating. Did I mention they don't charge a penny for any of this and that anyone who says otherwise is a liar? Ask any fire-fighters you know in your community what they think of the Red Cross. I bet the majority will praise them. Some won't because, in the end, each chapter's service depends on the volunteers they can attract and the budget they have to work with. I'm lucky enough to be in Portland, OR, which is one of the better supported chapters in the country.

Yes, there is inefficiency in the system; it's almost all volunteer driven. That's why my wife is helping the local chapter update their certification database. Yes, there have been problems with volunteers who out of ignorance or malice misused resources. That's why I do training for new volunteers. But look at the numbers- the Red Cross spends a hell of a lot less on overhead, admin and fundraising than some of the other NGOs people are praising in this thread. There are a lot of good groups out there: Doctors Without Borders and Mercy Corps are a couple of my other favorites. Each fills a specific niche. If you want your money to be spent in a very specific way in very limited circumstances, if you put the time and effort into researching it you can probably find a group who can do that and do it well. If you want to donate to a very large organization that responds to most any scale of disaster using mainly volunteers, well, the Red Cross is pretty darn good.

If you want to biatch and moan and cynically disparage anyone who wants to help someone else- welcome to fark. I come to this site for the witty banter and occasional insight that sometimes emerges. I know better than to use it as a guide for where to donate time or money; I'll do that research on my own and disregard the anecdotal stories people make up on the internet to try to make a point. So should you if you are serious about making an informed contribution.


So now our donations are being used to fund reactionary posts on news sites?
 
2011-04-04 05:33:12 AM

vlion: I know there were issues with the American Red Cross following 9/11 and (possibly?) Katrina. My family was involved with them for a few years as well, but due to some weird IP contract dropped out.

So I figure that one of the more efficient donations is to the Japanese Red Cross (why Cross in Japan? they aren't a Christian nation....)

my 2c


Because until only around 2005 ago the only options were Red Cross or Red Crescent.

A third, unused emblem of a red lion, sun and sword was created and approved for pre-Revolution Iran in the 1920's, but they ended up using the Crescent after their revolution. After the approval of that symbol in the 20's that point the international organization decided to require every nation to use the Cross or Crescent to avoid creating new symbols for every country.

A third, religiously neutral emblem of a red "crystal" (an outline of a square tipped 45 degrees) was approved a few years ago for Israel, so they could join (the warggable from Islamic nations at allowing a red Star of David would have been deafening otherwise).

While officially approved and fairly new, the "Red Crystal" isn't used much outside of Israel. If Japan used the Red Cross for decades and it's not controversial, no reason for them to change it (while definitely not a majority Christian state, I'm pretty sure Christianity is more common there than Islam, thanks to the efforts of Catholic missionaries going back to the 1500's).
 
2011-04-04 06:46:13 AM

Grables'Daughter: ThisNameSux: gilby_jr: If you donate your blood directly to a local hospital, that eliminates the need for them to BUY THEIR BLOOD FROM THE RED CROSS.

I hope you're trolling because if you actually believe that, you're a damn fool.

Does the Red Cross sell your frozen plasma? (new window)

(The answer is YES.)


No, no it doesn't. It's clearly states as such right on their goddamn website. What they do charge are small administrative costs they incur while testing, packaging and storing the blood. Costs that would otherwise be paid by the hospitals if it was their own blood.
 
2011-04-04 06:52:44 AM
My Grandfather was in the hospital dieing of Cancer. The red cross came in trying to sell doughnuts and coffee to everyone in the wing. My grandfather penniless, but asked for a cup of coffee and a doughnut. The red cross said no. No Dough, no dough. My father and his Sister had no money and neither Grandmother, who was sick at the time as well (cancer).

The Salvation Army came in and said to my Grandfather, "What ever you need we will get it for you." The story goes they brought him a new pillow, coffee, a doughnut occasionally.

The red cross will never in my life get a solitary penny from me.

The Salvation Army? Every chance I get, broke or not, i'll find a way to get them some cash.
 
2011-04-04 08:02:42 AM

randompersons87: There is some crazy misinformation happening here on the internet.

I work with the American Red Cross: Oregon Trail Chapter (Serves Portland, OR as well as the coast. OTC is also the lead chapter for the other states chapter)

Our emergency services department has four paid staff (making 40-60K), our outreach department has two paid staff. These staff members are generally working 50 hour weeks if there is "no disaster" activity outside of single family fires. On the chapter side (not Biomed) 95% of the work force are volunteers. 92% of your donation goes to clients (not fundraising, admin, etc.). I am a volunteer, I put in about 70 hours a month (I have to work 40 hours per week for a bank as well to eat, live, all that jazz). We are not a religious organisation and we do not receive funding from the government excluding some specific grants we receive for a specific purpose (Ex. We operate the City of Portland's emergency warming center).

We do "sell" blood that is donated, we have to cover the staff, testing, etc. We are able to get away with a slight markup due to the nature of our organisation, this money is then moved to sustaining operations and services for clients (moved to Emergency Services from biomed). The same applies to "Health and Saftey" classes taught by the ARC (CPR, First Aid, etc.) and sales of product (First Aid Kits, Radios, etc.). The "profit" is moved to Emergency Services to allow Emergency Services (and outreach) to continue providing services.

Oregon spends 16.9 Million per year in ES to keep services up and going (including rent, vehicles, paid staff, computers, everything). We belive that everyone must be equal, because of this we have fairly standardized relief on a day to day basis (4 people = $X of food, etc.). The amount of services we provide is directly related to how much is brought in, a few years ago we used to help buy furniture, pay deposits on new apartments, etc. Today we can only help get somewhere to stay for a bit, some food, and clothing and then we work with "partner" organisations to get them more (admittedly we have to improve this and we know it). Our budget has been shrinking, and like any company would we have made cuts to our staffing and sadly our services to fit (we cut out 6 paid positions three years ago). This has however made the % of funds that go to the client raise! This year we are facing a budget shortfall again, so we'll see what happens.

We do not charge for disaster relief ever, all Red Cross relief operations are an outright gift to the client We even have signs that say this, we do not charge for somewhere to sleep, we do not charge for food, we do not charge for supplies. We go to help these people when they need it. We open shelters for those who lose their home. We provide warmth for those who need it. We feed those who are looking for the lost. We do everything we can.

We do love the media (I am not a media man myself) but they need to without donations we have nothing to give. Staying in the public eye drives donations and brings in donors, its a necessary evil.

Money is being given to the Japan Red Cross from american donations, the amount being donated is based on requests from Japan and ICRC (this means that if not all is requested then money may stay for future disasters in the US) Money was given to Japan ASAP (before donations really started pouring in) this is because we use money from past donations from other disasters. JRC may not have distributed funds yet (but they are still providing services that cost money) and I can understand that they don't even understand the severity and amounts that the family's are going to need and just throwing money around is not going to help.

On an additional note (as made above) some older people hate the American Red Cross because "we charged" them money during the war. Please read the following for an explanation,

"Military Services
Coffee and Donuts
The Red Cross sold coffee and donuts instead of giving them away to military personnel during World War II.
This unfortunate policy came into bei ...


Uh, yeah, I linked to that information above to try to straighten that out.
 
2011-04-04 08:14:20 AM

ThisNameSux: Grables'Daughter: ThisNameSux: gilby_jr: If you donate your blood directly to a local hospital, that eliminates the need for them to BUY THEIR BLOOD FROM THE RED CROSS.

I hope you're trolling because if you actually believe that, you're a damn fool.

Does the Red Cross sell your frozen plasma? (new window)

(The answer is YES.)

No, no it doesn't. It's clearly states as such right on their goddamn website. What they do charge are small administrative costs they incur while testing, packaging and storing the blood. Costs that would otherwise be paid by the hospitals if it was their own blood.


Then I stand corrected, and I apologize.
 
2011-04-04 08:57:01 AM
Our town received a few hundred people who left New Orleans after Katrina, and the Red Cross actually ran off some local kids who had set up in front of a local grocery store to collect money for them. What little I've had to give since then has gone to the Salvation Army instead.
 
2011-04-04 08:59:18 AM

kittenfoo: Our town received a few hundred people who left New Orleans after Katrina, and the Red Cross actually ran off some local kids who had set up in front of a local grocery store to collect money for them. What little I've had to give since then has gone to the Salvation Army instead.


Yeah, don't let anyone else help. WE do the helping around here, you understand?

DO YOU?

DO YOU?!?!?!?
 
2011-04-04 09:51:36 AM
The Red Cross

A heartless corporation and nothing more.

Yet no matter how many of these stories come out people will still donate to them because it's easy.
 
2011-04-04 09:53:00 AM
Public relations firms in the house.
 
2011-04-04 10:22:01 AM

kittenfoo: Our town received a few hundred people who left New Orleans after Katrina, and the Red Cross actually ran off some local kids who had set up in front of a local grocery store to collect money for them. What little I've had to give since then has gone to the Salvation Army instead.


Link

The reason this happens is because people start "collecting for the Red Cross" and keeping or using it to scam people out of money. In Portland it got to the point people were being "hired" by the red cross to get money and were walking the streets downtown asking for donations and returning them to a bunch of con artists.
 
2011-04-04 10:31:05 AM

GAT_00: The Red Cross has dispatched more than 200 emergency relief teams to the disaster zone and organized thousands of volunteers to assist victims.

Buried down in the article.


Did they ever get in the new 500 million phone system they tried to use the 9/11 donations for?

The Red Cross and United Way are pretty much even in terms of crookery.
 
2011-04-04 11:37:11 AM

Grables'Daughter: ThisNameSux: Grables'Daughter: ThisNameSux: gilby_jr: If you donate your blood directly to a local hospital, that eliminates the need for them to BUY THEIR BLOOD FROM THE RED CROSS.

I hope you're trolling because if you actually believe that, you're a damn fool.

Does the Red Cross sell your frozen plasma? (new window)

(The answer is YES.)

No, no it doesn't. It's clearly states as such right on their goddamn website. What they do charge are small administrative costs they incur while testing, packaging and storing the blood. Costs that would otherwise be paid by the hospitals if it was their own blood.

Then I stand corrected, and I apologize.


No he was incorrect and you were technically correct. Blood such RBCs cannot be sold but the costs are past on. This includes anything that is immediately transfusible. Non transfusion plasma is sold to outside corporations that are plasma fractionators. They break down the plasma into usable products. This is done to help make up lost money on red blood cell products. Plus removing the plasma helps the rbcs last longer and are safer.
 
2011-04-04 11:49:25 AM

jwbchuckd: No he was incorrect and you were technically correct.


Wrong!
 
2011-04-04 11:57:05 AM
I haven't donated (money) to the Red Cross since 1990 when a local large apartment complex burned down displacing a lot of immigrant families that our small town didn't have room to house. That Sunday three women came in for Mother's Day dinner where I was head dinner cook. We had a limited menu, and they ordered the most expensive items on the menu. The bill was over $150 US. Woman A commented to woman B that it was awfully expensive, and Woman B replied, 'Oh, it's fine. I just put it on my Red Cross card'. Their server told me later that evening that she put it on a Red Cross business card. I was furious.
 
2011-04-04 12:43:34 PM
In case some of you mastermind sleuths hadn't yet figured it out, the Red Cross didn't actually need that much money for 9/11.. there were no homeless victims, not many sick or hurt victims. Lots of *dead* victims. So they continued to take the money, because, wait for it.. they can use the money later for other disaster victims.

But yeah, the Red Cross is evil and I can't believe their executives drive $40,000 cars. Gasp.

(ARC has an A- rating from Charity Watch. Not too shabby.)
 
2011-04-04 01:03:38 PM

ThisNameSux: jwbchuckd: No he was incorrect and you were technically correct.

Wrong!


OMG.

Should I gloat or not?

: )
 
2011-04-04 03:36:28 PM

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: No surprise. I've seen the Red Cross in action after smaller scale disasters. While all the other charities that showed were handing out free food and supplies to the needy without heed to the cost, the Red Cross people were charging for sandwiches, ignoring those without cash in hand who asked for help and focused their energy on obtaining more donations from everyone else.

They're good for blood drives, but nothing else.


I see you're getting some flack for your story so here is one from my personal experience. Yes, I was there and yes, I am that old.
Sixty or so years ago there was a very large fire in downtown Poughkeepsie, NY. It was the middle of a very cold winter and water was freezing everywhere, like coats and hats. Brushing icicles off hats was a regular thing. The Red Cross sold coffee and doughnuts to anyone who wanted. The Salvation Army gave the same stuff away!

Since then the RC has not gotten the sweat off my b**s. I even got in trouble in basic training because I would not allow the C/O to use my name for a donation.

Organised charities are one of the biggest boondoggles in this country.
 
drp
2011-04-04 03:57:45 PM
I'm late to the thread and haven't read the whole thing, but I believe the "90% incinerated" figure.

1) Blood demand is pretty constant.

2) 9/11 added approximately ZERO demand for blood.

3) 9/11 created a HUGE and very temporary surplus of donated blood nationwide. It was inevitable and obvious from 9/12 on that the great majority would be wasted. Blood is not like kidneys or livers; there's no waitlist for it, there's no latent demand to suck up an unexpected surplus.

3) There's a perpetual "shortage" mainly because of shelf life, not insufficient supply. Blood is only good for a few weeks ... and its quality (mainly O2 carrying capacity) steadily declines, to the point that the freshest blood is usually earmarked for small kids. Minor exceptions irrelevant to this discussion:
- frozen blood stores a long time, but is inferior to unfrozen blood and its use is more or less limited to military stockpiles
- crossmatching blood for people with rare antibodies certainly benefits from a larger pool of available blood
- platelets are an entirely different issue than red cells
- plasma is a somewhat different issue than red cells

In all the years I've been a doctor, I have never once ordered a transfusion of red cells and been told none is available - and I've transfused a lot of blood, from big city hospitals to the rural BFE hospitals I practice in now. Never. Once. Occasionally there is trouble finding a unit to match because of minor antibody issues, but there is always blood available.


If you dropped an extra 100,000 units on NYC tomorrow, I can easily believe that 90,000+ units would be destroyed in a few weeks.
 
2011-04-04 04:40:56 PM
RC gave me some $$ and help after a disaster when I lost my home, so I donate to them after each big disaster.

/what goes around
 
2011-04-04 04:48:24 PM

Old enough to know better: This is why I have such a hard time donating to ANYONE after a disaster. It seems like no matter who you give money to they end up keeping most of it.

Just don't know who to trust anymore.




Please give any money you can spare to me, I will 100% of it for myself!! At leaset I am honest!
 
2011-04-04 06:44:51 PM

uglyonef:

I see you're getting some flack for your story so here is one from my personal experience. Yes, I was there and yes, I am that old.
Sixty or so years ago there was a very large fire in downtown Poughkeepsie, NY. It was the middle of a very cold winter and water was freezing everywhere, like coats and hats. Brushing icicles off hats was a regular thing. The Red Cross sold coffee and doughnuts to anyone who wanted. The Salvation Army gave the same stuff away!

Since then the RC has not gotten the sweat off my b**s. I even got in trouble in basic training because I would not allow the C/O to use my name for a donation.

Organised charities are one of the biggest boondoggles in this country.


No they didn't. You are lying.

The Red Cross does not charge for any of their disaster assistance. I don't know why you would make up a story like this or what your personal agenda is. If you don't like them, fine just say so. But there's no reason to concoct a falsehood and try to pass it off as a true story.

You say organized charities are a boondoggle; that's your opinion. Mine is that people who make up stories to denigrate an organization that helps literally hundreds of thousands of people each year are plain evil.
 
2011-04-04 07:13:44 PM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Farker T: ZoeNekros: Farker T: Can they not donate blood?

Anyone who has had homosexual intercourse may not donate, gay or not.


Wow. Did not know that.

What about pathological liars who've had homosexual intercourse?

yeah, dude. when you go in to donate in the US (at least the times I was in, many moons ago) that's one of the first questions. it's so important, it's on the wall of some sites.

- you can't be gay.
- you can't be a man who has engaged in anal intercourse (to catch all the 'not gay but I... ' dudes
- you can't have travelled to haiti; haiti barred you for life from ever donating.
- you can't have exchanged sex for cash or goods.


have you ever donated? again, my days were many moons ago. i know that there's been some major noise here in the states to remove the gay ban. i don't know if it's ever been done, though. Reading ZoeNekros, looks like the ban is still there.


Cannot donate if you where in Europe during the early 80's either. Because of Mad Moooooooooooooooo cow disease
 
2011-04-04 11:56:05 PM

Stoutpants: Satanic_Hamster: I refuse to donate to the Red Cross. Very badly run and dishonest organization.

Did you know that 90 percent of the blood donated after 9/11 in the US was incinerated? Even when they knew their blood banks were filled to capacity, they kept taking donations and running advertisements for blood drives. Their brilliant plan was that if they could get people in to donate blood for PATRIOTISM after 9/11 once, some of them would become regular blood donors.

The Red Cross specifically advertised, frequently, that their blood supplies were doing quite well post 9/11 and that they had no immediate need for whole blood.

You are intentionally passing along false information for no other reason than shiats and giggles. You are a terrible human being.


And you're a stupid human being.

My father dealt with Red Cross a lot before he retired. No one liked being the Red Cross liaison. They had to rotate it between directors every year because people couldn't stand dealing with that organization on a long term basis.

Here's how it went down:
As people have mentioned, there wasn't a huge number of wounded on 9/11 (compared to the death toll). There was not a huge amount of blood needed. But people nationwide WANTED to help. So Red Cross advertised for blood drives.

In some cases (say, in SW Virginia), they were driving blood straight from the collection stations to incinerators.

Like any charity, Red Cross does do some good work. And like any organization, there's a certain amount of stupidity and inefficiencies, including ones that are near institutional among the long term leadership.

I'm not saying don't donate to the Red Cross under any circumstance. I'm just saying that *I* won't donate to them because of the crap I personally have had to deal with myself from them, as well as the experiences from my father.

Also, you're stupid.
 
2011-04-05 12:45:11 AM

ZoeNekros: Farker T: Can they not donate blood?

Anyone who has had homosexual intercourse may not donate, gay or not.


Incorrect. The questionnaire asks:

24. Male donors: Have you had sex with
another male, even once, since 1977?

(From http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/briefing/3760b1_17_fridey.pdf)

It does not specify intercourse.
 
2011-04-05 07:58:30 AM

lohphat: 24. Male donors: Have you had sex with another male, even once, since 1977?


So, the way that it's worded, it would also rule out Devil's Threesome's right?
 
2011-04-05 11:51:29 AM
why the f*ck do I try to be nice to JSTATROLL?

:(

Trolls quoting trolls
 
2011-04-05 03:14:00 PM

lohphat: ZoeNekros: Farker T: Can they not donate blood?

Anyone who has had homosexual intercourse may not donate, gay or not.

Incorrect. The questionnaire asks:

24. Male donors: Have you had sex with
another male, even once, since 1977?

(From http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/briefing/3760b1_17_fridey.pdf)

It does not specify intercourse.


Incorrect? I guess that depends on whether you were a lawyer for the prosecution or defense of Clinton.

/except the 1977 thing -- I just didn't recall that.
//I had the suspicion it was male only, but wasn't sure about that either.
 
2011-04-05 03:35:44 PM

Kittypie070: why the f*ck do I try to be nice to JSTATROLL?

:(

Trolls quoting trolls


Yup, tried to help that silly shiat out once, myself. fark him.
 
2011-04-05 05:49:17 PM

ZoeNekros:

Incorrect? I guess that depends on whether you were a lawyer for the prosecution or defense of Clinton.

/except the 1977 thing -- I just didn't recall that.
//I had the suspicion it was male only, but wasn't sure about that either.


Not all gay men practice anal intercourse.
 
2011-04-05 09:12:11 PM

lohphat: ZoeNekros:

Incorrect? I guess that depends on whether you were a lawyer for the prosecution or defense of Clinton.

/except the 1977 thing -- I just didn't recall that.
//I had the suspicion it was male only, but wasn't sure about that either.

Not all gay men practice anal intercourse.


I'm not sure why you're even saying that to me -- my only point was that the ban had nothing to do with sexual orientation per se, but rather sexual contact. Gay or not, sexual contact with another male -> banned. Gay or not, no sexual contact with another male -> permitted.

I'm not interested in a semantic dispute about what does or does not count as "sex" or "intercourse", if that's the tree you're barking up. I'm sure the red cross has a more precise definition somewhere.
 
2011-04-05 10:40:19 PM

ZoeNekros: I'm not sure why you're even saying that to me -- my only point was that the ban had nothing to do with sexual orientation per se, but rather sexual contact. Gay or not, sexual contact with another male -> banned. Gay or not, no sexual contact with another male -> permitted.

I'm not interested in a semantic dispute about what does or does not count as "sex" or "intercourse", if that's the tree you're barking up. I'm sure the red cross has a more precise definition somewhere.


I was just continuing the discussion. Nothing personal.

The reason why I called it out is to highlight the FDA's prohibition on this issue.

A monogamous gay man (who by the WHO's definition of "risky behavior" for HIV transmission is primarily unprotected intercourse) is banned, but a heterosexual college man with multiple partners a month is not.

Something is logically amiss here.

Either other non-intercourse sexual acts are risky despite being claimed as "safe" for prevention of HIV transmission for the last 25 years. e.g. oral sex and kissing an they've been misinforming everyone.

Or:

The prohibition isn't focusing on risky behavior and it has everything to do with placating an ignorant fearful public.

HIV infection rates have skyrocketed with Americans of Latino and/or African heritage. (new window) but why don't they simply prohibit those groups from donating?

The mode of transmission of HIV is well known. Screen for IV drug users, large numbers of unprotected sexual encounters, risky behavior. Then then screening can be more effective without having to bring other elements like race or sexual preference into it while still protecting the public.
 
2011-04-05 11:13:05 PM

lohphat: ZoeNekros: I'm not sure why you're even saying that to me -- my only point was that the ban had nothing to do with sexual orientation per se, but rather sexual contact. Gay or not, sexual contact with another male -> banned. Gay or not, no sexual contact with another male -> permitted.

I'm not interested in a semantic dispute about what does or does not count as "sex" or "intercourse", if that's the tree you're barking up. I'm sure the red cross has a more precise definition somewhere.

I was just continuing the discussion. Nothing personal.

The reason why I called it out is to highlight the FDA's prohibition on this issue.

A monogamous gay man (who by the WHO's definition of "risky behavior" for HIV transmission is primarily unprotected intercourse) is banned, but a heterosexual college man with multiple partners a month is not.

Something is logically amiss here.

Either other non-intercourse sexual acts are risky despite being claimed as "safe" for prevention of HIV transmission for the last 25 years. e.g. oral sex and kissing an they've been misinforming everyone.

Or:

The prohibition isn't focusing on risky behavior and it has everything to do with placating an ignorant fearful public.

HIV infection rates have skyrocketed with Americans of Latino and/or African heritage. (new window) but why don't they simply prohibit those groups from donating?

The mode of transmission of HIV is well known. Screen for IV drug users, large numbers of unprotected sexual encounters, risky behavior. Then then screening can be more effective without having to bring other elements like race or sexual preference into it while still protecting the public.


Ah, quoting me makes it seem like you're disagreeing with me (especially after explicitly saying I was incorrect in the previous post). I didn't express any stance whatsoever as to the efficacy or morality of the rule. To that, I agree with you: it's bad in both respects. It fails to serve a legitimate health benefit, and perpetuates the stigmatization of homosexuals.

To be absolutely fair, noting your promiscuous college kid example, homosexual intercourse isn't the only HIV/AIDS risk factor they screen for. Prostitution (either side), non-prescribed intravenous drug use, and residence high-risk countries are as well. Still, I can't help but think these guidelines were created long long ago, before we had much of the knowledge we do now and prior to a shift in trends of the transmission of the disease, and are in need of serious revision. They are written as if someone who did something high-risk in 1977 could any day now come down with symptoms. If I had sex with a prostitute (or another man) back then, but then became a celibate priest for over three decades, I still wouldn't be allowed to donate. Pretty sure I'd know by now -- or be dead.
 
2011-04-06 12:54:17 AM

ZoeNekros: They are written as if someone who did something high-risk in 1977 could any day now come down with symptoms. If I had sex with a prostitute (or another man) back then, but then became a celibate priest for over three decades, I still wouldn't be allowed to donate. Pretty sure I'd know by now -- or be dead.


Exactly.

The rules are updated periodically. The most recent change was last summer when they modified the question list. They had their chance.
 
Displayed 41 of 341 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report