Do you think donating blood is a universal right? Why or why not?
Ah, the puzzlings of high school debaters…
Umm… Do the words “of course not” mean anything to you?
In fact, it isn’t even worth arguing.
-raises hands defensively- Hey, I didn’t pick any of the topics. It’s just that some people insist that it is? * I don’t see how either…* Just looking for other opinions…
Do you mean responsibility? Because rights usually seem to refer to things you want to do, like priveliges. I.e., the right to free speech, right to vote, drive, etc.
Giving blood isn’t really something that benefits the person doing it. The blood donor is benefitting other people. Which is why i’d probably call it a responsibility, if anything at all.
Plus its not universal…
According to the little brochure they gave out at school, among the people who cannot are:
[li]Those who have had hepatitis after 11th birthday[/li][li]Ever used illegal IV drugs[/li][li]Men who have had sex with other men since 1977…[/li]
So, obviously, not quite universal. Hell, if you’ve had aspirin you can’t for a few days…
Here in England, we don’t pay blood donors.
I understand that you do in the US, and so you may get people with blood disorders trying to donate.
I think you’ll do well in a school debate by pointing out the weaknesses of the proposition:
- as already said, it’s a responsibility, not a right
- why would anyone want infected blood?
- why should you allow haemophiliacs to donate (sorry! :o )
- is money an issue?
After reading SFT’s earlier blood donation thread, I’d guess that this was triggered by the third item in the above list.
Here’s my take on it (and my qualifications for having this opinion (not that anyone needs any) are that I, too, am affected by that third item):
No, giving blood is not a universal human right. So putting these restrictions on it isn’t oppressive.
It is, however, kind of stupid. Especially the restriction on those who’ve had sex with other men since 1977. The Red Cross (and other blood collection agencies) is cutting off probably the largest single block (in proportion) of blood donors they have. Gay men have always been heavy blood donors, but the reasons for such would involve a rather heavy sociological discussion that would be off-topic for this thread. I sometimes wonder if the many recent local shortfalls have anything to do with the drying up of the flow of gay blood donors…
Anyway, the restriction is stupid because they already test for HIV! It shouldn’t, therefore, matter if you’re gay or straight, because the risk of HIV infection of the blood supply must be addressed regardless of your orientation.
However, there’s not really a constitutional case here. I don’t see how being denied the opportunity to donate blood can be seen as a violation of anyone’s rights.
jayjay
I’ve never heard of anyone getting paid for a blood donation, glee. Back when I was in college there was a place that paid for plasma, not blood. They had this nifty little machine that siphoned the plasma from the whole blood and then gave the whole blood back to you. Maybe that’s what you’re thinking.
But giving whole blood will net you only cookies and OJ.
YMMV
Doesn’t it take 3 to 6 months for HIV antibodies to show up in blood? If so, and HIV could sneak in under the radar by such a wide berth, it seems to me that they still have an incentive to cull high risk groups.
Not to stir up an anthill here, but couldn’t you say just the same of (say) serving in the military or leading a boy scout troop? I don’t know, maybe you agree. But if you disagree, then why?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zarathustra *
**
I’ll try to answer my opinion on these, and if this threatens to turn into a complete hijack, we can start a separate thread.
I’d say that the military situation is different because it’s a denial of opportunity. The military can be a distinguished career, and with the current rules gays and lesbians (and bisexuals, for that matter) are denied the same financial and social opportunities that straight members of the armed forces are offered. Even if the particular person is completely qualified and genuinely excellent at the position, he/she can be forced out. Blood donation doesn’t connote an opportunity in the same sense as the military does.
Boy Scouts is a public accommodations situation. An organization that receives federal (or state, in states that have sexual orientation in a non-discrimination statute) funding should not be able to discriminate. The BSA’s reasoning is mostly BS, and they’re accommodated by (at least in part) public funding, public facilities, and a special relationship to certain agencies within the US government.
And I want to partially retract my reasoning on the blood donation thing. It’s been so long since I’ve had to worry about any personal chance of HIV infection that I’d forgotten about the 3 to 6 month thing. In that case, though, why not just make it a 1-year period for ineligibility? I know plenty of gay men who haven’t had sex in a year (yes, it’s possible) who would gladly give blood but can’t because of a relationship they had five years ago.
jayjay
** Doesn’t it take 3 to 6 months for HIV antibodies to show up in blood? If so, and HIV could sneak in under the radar by such a wide berth, it seems to me that they still have an incentive to cull high risk groups. —Zarathustra **
They’ve found all sorts of neat little tests that will cut the time frame down to a matter of a few days, especially Nucleic Acid Testing.
** In that case, though, why not just make it a 1-year period for ineligibility? I know plenty of gay men who haven’t had sex in a year (yes, it’s possible) who would gladly give blood but can’t because of a relationship they had five years ago. --JayJay **
applauds wildly
I got banned for life just because I had one bad reaction! But when I did give blood they NEVER asked if I had sex with a man. Instead they asked (please allow me to paraphrase as it’s been about 3 years) If I have ever had sex with someone who had HIV or AIDS.
As per the OP I’d say that if you have enough weight and a parental permission slip then yeah go ahead. I think at my highschool the cut off was 16, and I did give blood.
As per the selling of blood most people give blood to the blood bank which gives only cookies and juice. Another benefit is all the cute nurses who fawn over you. When I had my reaction I had about 6 around me, patting my forehead with a damp towel, rubbing my arm. But if you want to sell your blood, I understand that that’s something that you can do. It’s probably through a private company which makes money doing it, although I’m sure the vast majority of people just donate.
oh, and one of the reasons you wouldn’t want to take blood from somebody too young is that their bodies are growing. And suddenly putting their body into a blood defecit can have adverse effect on their growth and puberty.
In most states, it is actually illegal to pay blood doners. What people get paid for is donating plasma, and if you ask the companies who process plasma, most will tell you that they don’t actually buy the plasma itself, they compensate the donors for their time.
I know this because I make about $400 a month “donating” plasma. I get paid extra because I had hepatitus as a child, and my plasma has antibodies (or something like that) in it that make it suitable for making clotting factor for hemophiliacs with active hepatitus; at least that is how it was explained to me.
Also, most places ban donation from those who lived in the British Isles (mad cow disease), or certain African countries (HIV) for at least six months since, well, I forget the year.
When I was younger and broker, I used to sell blood. I think I got $5.00 per pint, or something. This was probably 30 years ago, at least. I don’t know whether they still do it.
Bob.
After reading the rest of the posts here, I’d like to clarify:
Where I gave blood was a public blood bank, and,
It was whole blood, not plasma.
As I said, though, I don’t know whether they do this anymore or not.
Bob.
glee wrote:
Here in England, we don’t pay blood donors. I understand that you do in the US, and so you may get people with blood disorders trying to donate.
No, we don’t pay donors, here, either. We will pay for plasma, tho. As others have mentioned, you can get some quick cash for giving plasma. It’s a long process however. They take the blood out of you, the take out the liquid components and give you the solids back.
Uh-huh…when I was in college and Job Corps one of the favorite ways to get money was selling plasma. I never did it, firstly because they have the same problems with gay men that the whole blood people do, and secondly because I read the waiver you’re supposed to sign! :eek:
There’s a small chance of having something go fatally wrong on the re-fill end of the process, when they pump your blood solids back in. No, thank you!
jayjay
I was a phlebotomist at a plasma center for two years. In that period of time, I saw two get queasy from the process, and one throw up. Plasmapheresis is a very safe process, and because of the anticoagulant, there are rarely problems with donors getting ill, not to mention dying.
It was a large center, with hundreds of people donating per day. And yes, there were gay people donating. We never turned anyone away. All they had to do was answer the questions correctly, and we let them donate. Unless their blood work, temp, or BP was off.
…and yet I still forget to WAG things when I should…
Sorry, Hastur. The parts of my post that looked definite should have an IIRC in front of them. It has been close to eight years, after all. And the answer to the implicit question in an IIRC is usually “no” when it’s in reference to my memory… 
jayjay
Don’t worry about it. Most people don’t know what the process is. Many first time donors have the same ideas as you did.