Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Some Guy)   College bans blood drives as "discriminatory" because they screen for HIV. Surprisingly, it's not Berkeley   (insidebayarea.com) divider line
347
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

14481 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Feb 2008 at 7:31 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



347 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
T-Boy
2008-02-04 6:26:27 PM  
School administrators have totally lost their minds. An advanced degree in education must require some sort of surgical lobotomy. Kids can't run at recess, blood drives discriminate, no dodge ball, no kick ball, no competitive games; what we are "teaching" these days is irrational.
 
absoluteparanoia
2008-02-04 6:28:17 PM  
T-Boy: what we are "teaching" these days is irrational.

Especially to mathmaticians
 
Weaver95
2008-02-04 6:38:41 PM  
Y'know, screening blood donors for HIV isn't discrimination, it's to make sure that you DON'T GIVE SOMEONE AIDS!

Blood banks not making a moral judgement about HIV or AIDS, they're trying to make sure that someone who needs a blood tranfusion doesn't contract a lethal disease.

No wonder this country is farked up.
 
tallguywithglasseson
2008-02-04 6:43:34 PM  
It's not the screening for HIV that's got the libs upset, subby.

It's that they won't let any gay men donate - gay man being defined here as answering 'yes' to "have you had sex with another man, even once, since 1977?"

Which, as TFA states, is an FDA guideline.

The guideline is in place because this is considered a high-risk group for HIV, so close there subby, but a little misleading - they aren't advocating letting known HIV-positive people donate.
Anyone who's ever used intravenous drugs, btw, also has a lifetime ban on giving for the same reason.

But yeah, San Jose State University's banning the blood drive is still pants-on-head retarded.
 
jpbreon
2008-02-04 6:43:56 PM  
Hasn't been done at my school yet, I'm scheduled to give blood on the 14th of this month. I don't really understand how this can be classified discrimination as there are certain things you can discriminate against medical condition - like asthmatics cannot be firefighters, for obvious reasons.


No sense.
 
icanhazstapler
2008-02-04 6:44:22 PM  
I wonder what the likelihood of a straight hooker getting screened would be. I've never donated blood before, is there a detailed questionaire beforehand or do they just go by gaydar?
 
Weaver95
2008-02-04 6:44:40 PM  
tallguywithglasseson: It's that they won't let any gay men donate - gay man being defined here as answering 'yes' to "have you had sex with another man, even once, since 1977?"

Which, as TFA states, is an FDA guideline.

And a damn good guideline too I might add.
 
jpbreon
2008-02-04 6:49:57 PM  
tallguywithglasseson: It's not the screening for HIV that's got the libs upset, subby.

It's that they won't let any gay men donate - gay man being defined here as answering 'yes' to "have you had sex with another man, even once, since 1977?"

Which, as TFA states, is an FDA guideline.

The guideline is in place because this is considered a high-risk group for HIV, so close there subby, but a little misleading - they aren't advocating letting known HIV-positive people donate.
Anyone who's ever used intravenous drugs, btw, also has a lifetime ban on giving for the same reason.

But yeah, San Jose State University's banning the blood drive is still pants-on-head retarded.

Wait a second. I don't remember being asked about my sexual orientation on the questionnaire, though I do remember the standards questions like sicknesses, tattoos, or traveling to certain countries. People actually do ask sexual orientation at some places?
 
itazurakko
2008-02-04 6:54:22 PM  
tallguywithglasseson: It's not the screening for HIV that's got the libs upset, subby.

It's that they won't let any gay men donate - gay man being defined here as answering 'yes' to "have you had sex with another man, even once, since 1977?"

Which, as TFA states, is an FDA guideline.

The guideline is in place because this is considered a high-risk group for HIV, so close there subby, but a little misleading - they aren't advocating letting known HIV-positive people donate.
Anyone who's ever used intravenous drugs, btw, also has a lifetime ban on giving for the same reason.

But yeah, San Jose State University's banning the blood drive is still pants-on-head retarded.

Agreed on all points.

For mere starters, they have to screen ALL the blood they get anyway, because it's not as if ONLY gay men have HIV.

I would imagine they put out the message pretty well for people to self-segregate, meaning, "hey, if you have HIV (or herpes or any of the other factors that will make your blood unusable) then please don't waste our time donating." As long as the donations are voluntary, most people who know they can't donate won't (no one needs to know why).


So as long as donating is voluntary
 
filth
2008-02-04 6:55:49 PM  
icanhazstapler: I wonder what the likelihood of a straight hooker getting screened would be. I've never donated blood before, is there a detailed questionaire beforehand or do they just go by gaydar?

It's detailed, and if I remember correctly, hookers of any orientation get banned. I couldn't donate because of all the gay sex in Haiti, but they really weren't going to get much use out of the ice water anyway.
 
Mugato [TotalFark]
2008-02-04 7:10:55 PM  
Let's all sit and pretend that AIDS isn't a disproportionately gay disease. Because we wouldn't want to offend the sore sensitive gays.

Yes, they screen all the blood for HIV anyway but there is a significant amount that they miss. Why not screen out the high risk groups? You dont hear the IV drug users, people who have been to Africa or people with tattoos complaining.
 
itazurakko
2008-02-04 7:15:24 PM  
On the contrary, people with tattoos make a big stink about this constantly.
 
jpbreon
2008-02-04 7:16:42 PM  
Mugato: Let's all sit and pretend that AIDS isn't a disproportionately gay disease. Because we wouldn't want to offend the sore sensitive gays.

Yes, they screen all the blood for HIV anyway but there is a significant amount that they miss. Why not screen out the high risk groups? You dont hear the IV drug users, people who have been to Africa or people with tattoos complaining.

You don't miss HIV when checking blood before it goes to a blood bank. If that were so, no one would take a blood transfusion because it would literally be playing russian roulette.

Why don't they just ask if you have HIV or believe you may have it? Using the blanket disqualifier "gay people have a higher rate of HIV/Hepatitis even though straight people can have both" like contracting HIV from a gay person is more insulting and upsetting than getting it from a straight person. Makes no sense.
 
Broken9754
2008-02-04 7:29:34 PM  
jpbreon: You don't miss HIV when checking blood before it goes to a blood bank.

You can. It's incredibly rare, but possible. Hep C is the one that slips through more often.

This drives me nuts though. You don't make a political point, even a good one, at the cost of people's lives. This is partially why doctors have little political power. Most of us would never go on strike as too many people would be harmed.
 
puffy999 [TotalFark]
2008-02-04 7:35:09 PM  
jpbreon: If that were so, no one would take a blood transfusion because it would literally be playing russian roulette.

It is. Though maybe not for AIDS.
 
Ex-Republican
2008-02-04 7:35:56 PM  
As usual, the conservative farkers failed to check the facts. They're being called discriminatory because they ban gay men from donating. I don't agree with the college's reaction, but you guys are as retarded as the administrator.
 
skinink [OhFark]
2008-02-04 7:36:11 PM  
Hey, Magic Johnson, don't give no lines and keep your blood to yourself.
 
mrEdude
2008-02-04 7:36:56 PM  
LIsten you moronic submitter

THEY WERE SCREENING FOR GAYS

NOT AIDS OR HIV

THUS PERPETUATING THE NOTION THAT GAY = HIV
WHEN IN FACT IT DOES NOT


a blonde chick could have HIV tainted blood,
they've still got to test it all

SO WHY DISCRIMINATE UP FRONT AGAINST GAYS??
 
Aurric
2008-02-04 7:37:59 PM  
Weaver95: And a damn good guideline too I might add.

No, it's an idiotic guideline, and only the woefully ignorant would believe otherwise.
 
ZoeNekros
2008-02-04 7:39:14 PM  
Aurric: No, it's an idiotic guideline, and only the woefully ignorant would believe otherwise.

Heh, Weaver is a smart person, but with one severe case of homophobia...
 
Epsilon
2008-02-04 7:40:33 PM  
Simple solution: Go ahead and allow the gays to donate, but put a rainbow sticker on their bag. Then at the end of the day take all of those bags and throw them in the incinerator.
 
FarkinHostile
2008-02-04 7:40:38 PM  
My favorite part of giving blood is the questions:

"Have you ever had sex with a man for money after 1977?"

"AFTER 1977? No, not after 1977."


/Born in 1970
 
The_EliteOne
2008-02-04 7:40:51 PM  
Weaver95: Y'know, screening blood donors for HIV isn't discrimination, it's to make sure that you DON'T GIVE SOMEONE AIDS!

Blood banks not making a moral judgement about HIV or AIDS, they're trying to make sure that someone who needs a blood tranfusion doesn't contract a lethal disease.

No wonder this country is farked up.

Technically you'd only give them HIV. With the new (old?) testing standards that are done now, I'd say let gay men donate.

Your more at risk now from heterosexual sex then shooting drugs anyway. Gay sex > Heterosexual Sex > IDUs (13.5% in NYC) > Birth (2 - 4%) > Transfusion/Accident (0.1%)
 
Boap123
2008-02-04 7:41:04 PM  
We should be testing all the blood that is donated to make sure it is not contaminated in any way. Personally I do not care who the blood came from as long as it is clean.
 
12349876
2008-02-04 7:41:36 PM  
Yes, I have gotten the "Have you had gay sex since 1977?" on the questionaire. The Intravenous drugs were on there, and there was also a prohibition for anyone who ate meat in Europe during the 1980's or something like that.

The only way this ban is legit is if there is a period of time where HIV is there but can't be detected in blood.

/I'm too lazy to research
 
Atypical Person Reading Fark
2008-02-04 7:42:22 PM  
Colleges and universities are supposed to represent knowledge and intelligence. Indeed, one feels inclined to demand knowledge and intelligence from them.

i185.photobucket.comView Full Size


If only the typical dean/vice president (hilarious titles, aren't they) felt a fraction of what this man does.
 
NASAM
2008-02-04 7:42:39 PM  
jpbreon: tallguywithglasseson: It's not the screening for HIV that's got the libs upset, subby.

It's that they won't let any gay men donate - gay man being defined here as answering 'yes' to "have you had sex with another man, even once, since 1977?"

Which, as TFA states, is an FDA guideline.

The guideline is in place because this is considered a high-risk group for HIV, so close there subby, but a little misleading - they aren't advocating letting known HIV-positive people donate.
Anyone who's ever used intravenous drugs, btw, also has a lifetime ban on giving for the same reason.

But yeah, San Jose State University's banning the blood drive is still pants-on-head retarded.

Wait a second. I don't remember being asked about my sexual orientation on the questionnaire, though I do remember the standards questions like sicknesses, tattoos, or traveling to certain countries. People actually do ask sexual orientation at some places?

Yep,I give blood regularly, and one of the questions is:

Have you ever had sex with another man, even once, since 1977?
 
AliasUndercover
2008-02-04 7:43:24 PM  
I don't want hipster blood anyway.
 
Aurric
2008-02-04 7:43:43 PM  
ZoeNekros: Heh, Weaver is a smart person, but with one severe case of homophobia...

I didn't call him stupid. I called him woefully ignorant.
 
Human Dude
2008-02-04 7:44:03 PM  
The blood bank discriminates against me because I spent the years 1984 thru 1986 in the United Kingdom. Apparently I am a Mad Cow risk.


\do not have mad cow
\\I am not even a cow.
\\\I am a helecopter! Whhheeee!
 
sovietpower
2008-02-04 7:44:03 PM  
JFC, would you rather get aids b/c you campus wants to hold non discriminatory blood drives?

/Oh shiat this is going to turn into a war of gay vs bashers any sec now.
 
sunbird
2008-02-04 7:44:04 PM  
Weaver95: tallguywithglasseson: It's that they won't let any gay men donate - gay man being defined here as answering 'yes' to "have you had sex with another man, even once, since 1977?"

Which, as TFA states, is an FDA guideline.

And a damn good guideline too I might add.

Yeah, in farkwitland perhaps. Because every person in that magical who is gay has AIDS. Here in the real world it is just preventing people who aren't a risk (you know, the gay people who don't engage in risky behaviour) from helping other people (the ones who badly need blood).
 
Lexx
2008-02-04 7:44:11 PM  
You discriminate upfront against gays because, if I recall correctly, the chance of a gay man being HIV positive is something like 17x higher than the rest of the populace. Apparently the odds of being HIV infected if you're gay and black are 33%.

http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
 
The_EliteOne
2008-02-04 7:44:21 PM  
Mugato: Yes, they screen all the blood for HIV anyway but there is a significant amount that they miss.

WHAT?? Where do you get your info from? This isn't China. If there was a SIGNIFICANT amount they miss, and HIV was affecting white virgins and grandmothers it'd be on the news everyday, and someones ass would be had.
 
clevershark
2008-02-04 7:44:27 PM  
The headline---------------------------------------the actual story

"and never the twain shall meet"
 
ZoeNekros
2008-02-04 7:45:56 PM  
Aurric: I didn't call him stupid. I called him woefully ignorant.

I didn't mean for that to be a correction -- I was agreeing with you (just adding to what you said, though specifically about weaver, rather than remaining general)
 
birkin
2008-02-04 7:46:27 PM  
in the world of leftism, nature doesn't exist. it's all a social construct.

/yay for bourgeois constructs
 
WorldCitizen
2008-02-04 7:46:56 PM  
So Africans aren't allowed to donate blood either, right?
 
kilgorn
2008-02-04 7:47:00 PM  
Oh, a gay thread...meh
 
Harvey Manfrenjensenjen
2008-02-04 7:47:58 PM  
People who live on Shelter Island, NY are pretty much banned from giving blood because of the high incidence of Lyme Disease. I don't see people marching in the streets over that one.
 
Bessame
2008-02-04 7:49:07 PM  
Well, they also discriminate people that have lived in exotic locales for a few months...like London.

Because I lived in London for 6 months in 1991, I cannot EVER donate blood. The reason is the "Mad Cow" issue. There still isn't a test to see if someone is infected, and strains of the human version can be dormant for 15 years or more. Until there a reliable test, my O+ blood is for me alone.

I think it a little lame as I have been a vegetarian since 1987, so am even less likely than most to have been exposed, but there you are.
 
vudukungfu [TotalFark]
2008-02-04 7:49:16 PM  
Boap123: We should be testing all the blood that is donated to make sure it is not contaminated in any way. Personally I do not care who the blood came from as long as it is clean.

This.
/universal donor and will not give becaue they ask me about teh shey an don't ask if I'm tested and negative evey 6 months.
//which I am.
//and celbate for 10 years.

Screen for HIV and don't ask me stupid questions, I might donate again.
 
D-Liver
2008-02-04 7:49:17 PM  
pants-on-head retarded.


I believe 'pants-on-head retarded' is my new favorite phrase.
 
ral315
2008-02-04 7:49:48 PM  
Yes, HIV is a disproportionately gay disease. However, to take an example, someone who experimented once or twice with a known HIV-negative roommate in college is a much lesser risk than someone who's never had gay sex, but shared needles regularly. A much better series of questions would be:

Have you had sex with another man more than once in the last 20 years?
If you answered yes to the previous question, have you been screened for HIV, and tested negative, since the last sexual encounter?

Since HIV is tested in all blood samples anyway, I don't think the rate of HIV in transfusions would grow by any statistically significant amount.
 
LondonerDan
2008-02-04 7:51:22 PM  
This was recently brought up at my school(University of Western Ontario). Thankfully, the notion to ban Canadian Blood Services from campus was voted down.
 
NimChimpskee
2008-02-04 7:51:37 PM  
-100

subby is so full of fail it makes me want to vomit.

gay!=aids

go back to the 80s
 
Anagrammer
2008-02-04 7:51:46 PM  
mrEdude: LIsten you moronic submitter

THEY WERE SCREENING FOR GAYS

NOT AIDS OR HIV

THUS PERPETUATING THE NOTION THAT GAY = HIV
WHEN IN FACT IT DOES NOT


a blonde chick could have HIV tainted blood,
they've still got to test it all

SO WHY DISCRIMINATE UP FRONT AGAINST GAYS??

Because the FDA requires them to ask the question about having sex with another man since 1977?
 
WFern
2008-02-04 7:51:51 PM  
According to the public service announcements I've seen, black urban youth are the most at-risk group for HIV infection in this country.

NO ONE would dare suggest the "coloreds" be prevented from donation, but apparently "queers" are still fair game in America.
 
Aarontology
2008-02-04 7:51:51 PM  
WorldCitizen: So Africans aren't allowed to donate blood either, right?

They wouldn't be able to, no. Every time I have given blood there has been the disclaimer that said if you had spent 6 months out of the country in the last few years you cannot give blood.
 
wowzer97pooh
2008-02-04 7:52:35 PM  
In the end, prions are going to win. Dammit.
 
Displayed 50 of 347 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Total access
Total knowledge
Total Fark

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.