This is ridiculous. The blood donor rules are not there to make people feel good, they exist to save lives. They do not bar "gay" people from donating, just people who have engaged in risky behaviors that may have exposed them to diseases. The risky behaviors that prevent someone from donating blood includes snorting cocaine and injecting heroin. Are the Penn Coke Snorters going to protest this discrimination against them? How dare Penn try to ban these kids from trying to give blood -- just because they like to party? Bottom line: would you want your sick infant getting a blood transfusion from someone who had engaged in "risky" behavior? Or would you be willing to risk it in order not to offend someone else? Get a grip.

blood is screened - to uniaterally ban any group of people from donating blood - knowing that blood will be tested anyway is to practice discrimination - but just because some like the form of discrimination or are willing to sacrifice groups who will be discriminated does not make the practice correct. If the blood drives must continue under the current rules have them elsewhere - and the Red Cross should announce the discriminatory policy rather than hide it. It's amazing that people will decide without any basis but their own prejudices that gay men exhibit risky behavior.

So the liberals would rather put everyone at risk of a horrific disease to assuage their own consciences/sense of righteousness than protect the public/innocent patients from even the smallest chance of contracting HIV.

[QUOTE id="c2af0c8b-86b3-4581-b402-a4404b50e11d"]This is ridiculous. The blood donor rules are not there to make people feel good, they exist to save lives. They do not bar "gay" people from donating, just people who have engaged in risky behaviors that may have exposed them to diseases. The risky behaviors that prevent someone from donating blood includes snorting cocaine and injecting heroin. Are the Penn Coke Snorters going to protest this discrimination against them? How dare Penn try to ban these kids from trying to give blood -- just because they like to party? Bottom line: would you want your sick infant getting a blood transfusion from someone who had engaged in "risky" behavior? Or would you be willing to risk it in order not to offend someone else? Get a grip.[/QUOTE] I agree. The criteria should just focus on risky behavior in general. Currently I'm not allowed to give blood because i've recently lived in and worked all over East Africa, and there's a window period in which I'm considered "high risk." While I was there I know I didn't engage in "risky behavior" but how could the Red Cross ever really know? It's far more important for them to weed out potential problems than to worry about hurting people's feelings. That being said, in this day and age its a little silly to assume gay men are engaging in behavior that is any more "risky" than any other college kid.

this is not a liberal item - all blood is screened and it should all be screened - if we are only relying on men to reveal if they have had sex with men since the 1970's there is the chance that somebody might not answer truthfully - what the practice hopes to do is to provide stigma to a group of people already denied basic civil rights under the screen of responsibility. Why is it that the Red Cross in other countries does not have such a restriction? In those countries is there any sign of contamination as a result? The comments of most hear show how hysteria happens - and how the ignorant think that because they can type a few words they ought to have the right to express opinions founded not on science but hysteria.

In 2006, the American Association of Blood Banks, America's Blood Centers and the American Red Cross issued a statement encouraging the FDA to modify its policy by imposing the same yearlong deferral on MSM donors as is required for high-risk heterosexual donors. I think everyone is missing this (very important) sentence in the article. These organizations are responsible for collecting and handling something like 98% of all blood in the United States, and they think the policy should change from a LIFETIME ban to a one year deferral. Something tells me that with the millions of dollars in their budgets and the hundreds of physicians and scientists on their payroll, the ARC, AABB, and ABC did their research and found that there would be no significant increase in the risk of people getting HIV through blood transfusions. Do you really think that they would open themselves up to the insane liability of recommending that kind of policy if they didn't have the scientific data to back it up?

[QUOTE id="6ebdb889-4f0d-421d-887a-b32ed2ef4b71"] For instance, why not host a blood drive from an organization that does accept MSM blood? This would raise the same issues without relying on potentially incorrect statistics.[/QUOTE] I agree that this would be a great idea. Unfortunately, there are no organizations that accept MSM blood. Any org that collects blood has to follow the FDA's policies. They have the full force of law, in a manner of speaking. Another thing too though is that it doesnt look like Lambda Alliance is saying the Penn should ban the red cross from campus. Sure they are saying that the Red Cross being on campus violates the nondiscrimination policy because of the FDAs rules, but i think they were saying that they just want penn to come out and say it publicly. that may not have been in this article but i said that the one that was in the paper on tuesday.

This is almost as stupid as banning military recruiters from campus because of the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Note to the Left: if you want to institute change, do it through public opinion campaigns and the courts...not by undermining the blood supply and national security altogether.

Who do trust with determining the best way to maintain a healthy blood supply -- doctors and researchers at the FDA or the LGBT center? Give me a break. This and the Muslim-based "women-only" gym hours show that Stalinism is alive and well among the American Left.

Let's trust doctors and research scientists - not the FDA - they agree that the current policy is unnecessarily discriminatory and, in fact, dangerous... the ease with which people express stupidity is scary -

[QUOTE id="d065c2c3-eade-4a41-8d9b-bdb9a6fb8327"]The UA is getting a little carried away -- while it is one thing to debate the scientific merits of the FDA rules on who can donate blood in order to ensure that the blood supply is safe, it is another thing to question whether to hold blood drives on campus -- with such grave shortages of blood, it is a true act of kindness to donate blood so that ill and injured children and adults can get blood when they are in need of transfusions. Let the blood drives remain on campus![/QUOTE] To clarify the proposal a bit, it specifically states that our intentions are NOT to close blood drives on campus. The proposal instead urges Penn to evaluate the blood donor ban in relation to its non-discrimination policy-- even if it is in violation, it will not necessarily lead to the end of blood drives on campus.

So, if a man had sex with a man one time in 1977. For both men that was the first and anytime that either had sexual contact with any living creature... by the FDA current standards neither could donate blood and could thereby - although completely healthy - they could not donate blood to the Red Cross in the United States... whereas a young woman who has had 100 different partners, many of them men who have had sex with other men and any creature or object animate or inanimate, and her blood would not be refused. So - the FDA rules make no sense - and the only purpose that they serve is to apply a stigma to a group which ought to demand more respect - particularly from the generally good people who can recognize the virulent homophobia in many of the posts here.

Since the DP apparently only reports on the news as it affects Penn--not the informational context--I'll fill people in. An FDA panel recently voted narrowly (7-6) to continue the ban on blood from gay man who've had sex with other gay men in recent years. The reasoning is that these individuals are at significantly higher risk of having HIV/AIDS and other bloodborne illnesses and blood testing is imperfect; each year, 10-12 infected blood samples make it past testing and several are given to patients, resulting in infection. Seems logical to me...at least enough that we shouldn't be SHUTTING DOWN blood drives on campus. Jeez.

so, those of you who claim to be only interest in the health of your babies all support full-gay rights such as gay marriage?

[QUOTE id="adb72bff-33c1-4b8d-8544-a25d7118f218"]so, those of you who claim to be only interest in the health of your babies all support full-gay rights such as gay marriage?[/QUOTE] I personally do support gay marriage but I have to tell you right now that you're not helping anything nor fueling productive discussion. Many doctors do see a legitimately higher risk of HIV infection among males who have sex with males, and a higher likelihood of risky behavior that would lead to HIV infection. However, that is not a judgment of anyone who agrees with such an idea as a personal attack against the homosexual community. To say that the only possible reason such provisions exist is to create stigma for homosexuals is as much a mean-spirited lie and strike against another's character as you're claiming the FDA is doing against homosexuals. And this message about gay marriage is only going to make people think all the more that you don't honestly give a damn to the health risks involved but are turning it into a political issue. You claim that those who speak of a higher risk factor only do so for political reasons (smiting the gay community) and not because of legitimate medical evidence. Do you think your argument will work or are you making it too obvious with this message that it is really YOU who is turning this into a political message and paying no attention to the health risks? Both the tone and the arguments you raise in your messages are beginning to shoot you in the foot and make a hypocrite. Be rational.

[QUOTE id="adb72bff-33c1-4b8d-8544-a25d7118f218"]so, those of you who claim to be only interest in the health of your babies all support full-gay rights such as gay marriage?[/QUOTE] wow - you think you have a right to address MY tone? this is, of course, a political issue - the FDA is a political agency - and since the policy is irrational - it is a logical conclusion that the opinions expressed are politically based - what other high risk groups are banned? do we ban people of specific socio-economic backgrounds? ethnicities no we don't... this is not a health issue - healthy gay men could be donating blood

[QUOTE id="adb72bff-33c1-4b8d-8544-a25d7118f218"]wow - you think you have a right to address MY tone? this is, of course, a political issue - the FDA is a political agency - and since the policy is irrational - it is a logical conclusion that the opinions expressed are politically based - what other high risk groups are banned? do we ban people of specific socio-economic backgrounds? ethnicities no we don't... this is not a health issue - healthy gay men could be donating blood[/QUOTE] What I'm saying is that if you actually want a change, the way to fight it is not the way that you're doing it. Do you want it to be changed for health reasons or for political reasons? If it's for political reasons, you won't change the mind of a single person who sees it as a medical issue, rightly or wrongly. The people who need convincing are not just the people who know little about the issue, but the doctors who are trusted as the authorities for those who don't know about it themselves. And to say that every single doctor who claims to see it as a medical issue is secretly homophobic will do nothing, as it's an ad hominem attack and not an argument.

well, thanks for the condecension - your approach doesn't seem to have worked so far - the policy is in place and the queer community has less rights than ever (notice how NONE of the leading candidates for President care to address the issues of the LGBT community)... this is a political issue - and people who express uninformed opinons ought to be addressed personally for their ignorance - I think shaming them into submission is a perfectly good strategy... the FDA policy is purely political - doctors are people and as hard as it might be for some to fathom, they may make decisions based on political or other non-scientific reaasons

[QUOTE id="0e501b3d-abe8-4acb-8e8b-977b009cafee"]well, thanks for the condecension - your approach doesn't seem to have worked so far - the policy is in place and the queer community has less rights than ever (notice how NONE of the leading candidates for President care to address the issues of the LGBT community)... this is a political issue - and people who express uninformed opinons ought to be addressed personally for their ignorance - I think shaming them into submission is a perfectly good strategy... the FDA policy is purely political - doctors are people and as hard as it might be for some to fathom, they may make decisions based on political or other non-scientific reaasons[/QUOTE] I apologize if you think that I have been condescending. I have sincerely intended to keep the discussion as non-personal as possible. Shaming politicians into a course of action is one thing. Shaming doctors by claiming they are acting on an entirely political basis and have no scientific justification for their views is unnecessary, ineffective, and morally wrong.

The UA is getting a little carried away -- while it is one thing to debate the scientific merits of the FDA rules on who can donate blood in order to ensure that the blood supply is safe, it is another thing to question whether to hold blood drives on campus -- with such grave shortages of blood, it is a true act of kindness to donate blood so that ill and injured children and adults can get blood when they are in need of transfusions. Let the blood drives remain on campus!

I think it's interesting that one would view blood donation as a "privilege" enough to call those excluded "discriminated against". It shows that this really is "a matter of principle" concept. I urge anyone considering this issue to ask themselves how they would feel if their particular demographic were excluded due to "elevated risk". After we've determined the motives for the ban, and thoroughly considered the scientific basis for the exclusion of what is thought to be a high risk demographic (after all, WOMEN are also excluded if they have had relations with an MSM!!! who says that the women are not heterosexual?)... if there is no fiscal or safety motivation, then this is clearly the product of bias that should be opposed by the University. Conversely, if there IS a scientific basis, everybody should just get the hell over it. Seriously, mountains out of molehills- and we should concentrate on the factors that may make MSM a high risk demographic in the first place, so that fewer human beings suffer from REAL tragedy.

While I am not opposed to the Lambda Alliance's actions, I feel that they are slightly misguided. The underlying problem is that publicly available information on RECENT demographic risk for HIV/AIDS infection is not available. The lack of transparency makes men in the LGBT community (erroneously, but reasonably used as a proxy for MSM), a group that is systematically marginalized, feel victimized yet again. Until statistics that can be verified are available, at which time real promotion or derision of the ban can take place, perhaps the LGBT community can take other actions. For instance, why not host a blood drive from an organization that does accept MSM blood? This would raise the same issues without relying on potentially incorrect statistics.

From the FDA's website: (http://www.fda.gov/CBER/faq/msmdonor.htm#1) "Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross)." �?While today's highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.�? ---- As a former student who used to organize blood drives on campus, I know how difficult it is to find *willing* donors that meet all the eligibility criteria. The donor screening questions are meant to exclude individuals that pose the highest statistical risk of exposing such diseases as HIV, hepatitis & Mad Cow disease into the blood supply. Unfortunately, this excludes large populations despite the fact that many individual members of those populations are perfectly safe donors. But since the testing of donated blood for such diseases is not 100% foolproof (though it�?s getting pretty close), broad exclusions are necessary in order to make donated blood as safe as possible. Aside from MSM, this also means that anyone who has lived in 1 of over 30 European countries for more than 5 years can never donate because of the risk of transmitting Mad Cow disease. Donator eligibility criteria are continuously reexamined by the Red Cross, FDA, CDC, NIH, and other agencies and discussions regarding these criteria should be left at that level. I�?m appalled that the UA would take a statistical issue and turn it into one of discrimination. While it makes for an interesting academic discussion, labeling on-campus blood donation as discriminatory will only serve as a deterrent to getting students to donate. Which is a shame since college age individuals are ideal donors Ð generally healthy & able to start a lifelong habit of donation Ð and sorely needed given the perpetual shortage of blood in this country.