Suspect motivations
Gary Lowell
Issue date: 10/8/09 Section: Opinion
In its October 25, 2007 issue, The Comment had an article entitled "Campus blood drive seeks donations, but gays are banned." In the article, it was said how a campus blood drive did not allow people who identified as being gay to donate blood. Several of the people interviewed in the article thought that the policy was discriminatory against gay people and that it was wrong. I also got the impression from the article that the people interviewed thought the policy was in place simply to discriminate against gays.
I sent an editorial submission into The Comment after reading it, and it was published in the November 9, 2007 issue. In the article, the main thing I was trying to say was that the policy was not in place simply to discriminate against gays.
In it I said "A better policy would be one where every person is tested for any diseases before he/she is allowed to give blood. Those tests may be expensive to perform on every blood donor, I do not know. The current policy of banning gays from donating blood may have been the only economically feasible solution." I concluded with "Either way, in a perfect world, every person donating blood would be tested for AIDS before they give blood, and gays would not be banned. It is important to remember, though, that the current policy is not in place to discriminate. It is in place to help prevent the spread of AIDS."
In the February 7, 2008 issue of The Comment, a response to my editorial was submitted by four writers. In it, they said that all blood is rigorously tested before it is given to a patient. They offered many statistics on the prevalence of AIDS in both the U.S. and in Massachusetts. In the U.S., they said, male to male sexual contact accounted for 42.75% of new HIV/AIDS cases in 2005. In Massachusetts, they said, 33% of new HIV/AIDS cases were from male to male sexual contact in 2007. They concluded with "it IS a 'perfect world' and preventing gays from donating blood is discrimination and not prevention."
I sent an editorial submission into The Comment after reading it, and it was published in the November 9, 2007 issue. In the article, the main thing I was trying to say was that the policy was not in place simply to discriminate against gays.
In it I said "A better policy would be one where every person is tested for any diseases before he/she is allowed to give blood. Those tests may be expensive to perform on every blood donor, I do not know. The current policy of banning gays from donating blood may have been the only economically feasible solution." I concluded with "Either way, in a perfect world, every person donating blood would be tested for AIDS before they give blood, and gays would not be banned. It is important to remember, though, that the current policy is not in place to discriminate. It is in place to help prevent the spread of AIDS."
In the February 7, 2008 issue of The Comment, a response to my editorial was submitted by four writers. In it, they said that all blood is rigorously tested before it is given to a patient. They offered many statistics on the prevalence of AIDS in both the U.S. and in Massachusetts. In the U.S., they said, male to male sexual contact accounted for 42.75% of new HIV/AIDS cases in 2005. In Massachusetts, they said, 33% of new HIV/AIDS cases were from male to male sexual contact in 2007. They concluded with "it IS a 'perfect world' and preventing gays from donating blood is discrimination and not prevention."
Be the first to comment on this story