2008 Woodie Awards
Vote Absentee
Video related to this article is available below.Issue date: 2/28/08 Section: News
UA takes on blood drive issue
Group urges University to examine FDA ban on donations from gay men
Jody Pollock
On Sunday, the Undergraduate Assembly urged the University to examine whether the presence of on-campus blood collectors who are bound by an FDA policy banning certain blood donors violates Penn's non-discrimination policy.
Despite a national blood shortage, millions are prohibited from donating by the Federal Drug Administration's lifetime ban on men who have had sex with men (MSM) since 1977. The FDA argues that this type of sexual activity puts them at a higher risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases that could be then transmitted through blood transfusions.
After a controversial, lengthy debate, the Blood Donor Discrimination Proposal passed by a margin of 17 to 9 with three abstentions, College senior and UA chairman Jason Karsh said.
When Lambda Alliance first raised the blood policy issue at a University Council meeting last March, the UC never followed up, said Wharton and College junior, UA member and DP columnist Lisa Zhu, who coauthored the proposal on behalf of the UA.
The proposal is an attempt to revive the University-wide debate and "pressure the administration to reevaluate their stance," said Karsh.
The UA is currently in talks with the President's Office, the Office of the Provost and other relevant administrators to "see what the best plan of action is," he said.
"This is a huge step for Penn's LGBT community and for Penn itself," said College senior Kevin Rurak, who co-sponsored the proposal on behalf of Lambda Alliance. "With this vote, the UA is continuing to uphold Penn's reputation as a strong leader in LGBT rights and equality."
The Penn precedent for taking such action, said Rurak, is the University's acknowledgement that its non-discrimination policy is violated by a federal law saying military recruiters must be allowed on campus.
In that situation, the administration amended the University's Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy to urge the Department of Defense to change its "don't ask, don't tell" military policy. The Blood Donor Discrimination Proposal asks the University to do the same for FDA blood donation guidelines.
Despite a national blood shortage, millions are prohibited from donating by the Federal Drug Administration's lifetime ban on men who have had sex with men (MSM) since 1977. The FDA argues that this type of sexual activity puts them at a higher risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases that could be then transmitted through blood transfusions.
After a controversial, lengthy debate, the Blood Donor Discrimination Proposal passed by a margin of 17 to 9 with three abstentions, College senior and UA chairman Jason Karsh said.
When Lambda Alliance first raised the blood policy issue at a University Council meeting last March, the UC never followed up, said Wharton and College junior, UA member and DP columnist Lisa Zhu, who coauthored the proposal on behalf of the UA.
The proposal is an attempt to revive the University-wide debate and "pressure the administration to reevaluate their stance," said Karsh.
The UA is currently in talks with the President's Office, the Office of the Provost and other relevant administrators to "see what the best plan of action is," he said.
"This is a huge step for Penn's LGBT community and for Penn itself," said College senior Kevin Rurak, who co-sponsored the proposal on behalf of Lambda Alliance. "With this vote, the UA is continuing to uphold Penn's reputation as a strong leader in LGBT rights and equality."
The Penn precedent for taking such action, said Rurak, is the University's acknowledgement that its non-discrimination policy is violated by a federal law saying military recruiters must be allowed on campus.
In that situation, the administration amended the University's Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy to urge the Department of Defense to change its "don't ask, don't tell" military policy. The Blood Donor Discrimination Proposal asks the University to do the same for FDA blood donation guidelines.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 23
Robby
posted 2/28/08 @ 8:54 AM EST
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. (Continued…)
anon, nurse
posted 2/28/08 @ 9:05 AM EST
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. (Continued…)
'08 Student
posted 2/28/08 @ 9:44 AM EST
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. (Continued…)
Laurie Gigliotti
posted 2/28/08 @ 10:08 AM EST
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. (Continued…)
mikep89
posted 2/28/08 @ 12:17 PM EST
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. (Continued…)
Typical
posted 2/28/08 @ 12:50 PM EST
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. (Continued…)
mikep89
posted 2/28/08 @ 1:13 PM EST
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. (Continued…)
Alumnus in Support
posted 2/28/08 @ 1:48 PM EST
"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. (Continued…)
Senior
posted 2/28/08 @ 2:12 PM EST
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. (Continued…)
Who do you trust?
posted 2/28/08 @ 2:14 PM EST
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. (Continued…)
Post a Comment