Sorry for the simu-post.
Living in the sticks it isn’t uncommon to walk a mile for a Camel (or blood donation), in the blinding snow storm, uphill both ways, barefoot, and without a coat. 
Manhattan - Before you start drawing assumptions on the availability of alternatives to the American Red Cross, let me clarify that in a sense I do drive 50 miles to donate considering my office (during blood drives) and hospital (when I donate on my own) is almost 50 miles from home. Fifty miles is nothing.
To donate to the next available blood service would require me to drive a few hours and a few hundred miles out of State. As I said, I’m not going to do this - period.
A few years ago we had the choice between the American Red Cross and IHC. IHC was suspended from blood collections due to :::gasp::: unsafe blood screening. Local hospitals now only refer donors to the American Red Cross.
Although you are correct in stating that alternatives are available to everyone, I suspect that certain conditions such as mine, deter others from using these alternatives. Shit, Martians can even fly their spaceship to an alternative blood bank if they are ambitious enough, right?
So let me clarify. YES - there are other choices, but those choices are not practical for everyone.
I also challenge you to answer the questions I previously asked. Does your protest carry over if you or someone you love ever need the services of the American Red Cross or is it strictly contained to what you can offer them?
WTF?!?!?!
I hit reply, do a few things, come back, and now I see extra posts under my name? I’ll say it again - WTF!?!?!?! I think Manhattan is screwing with my posts.
Just kidding, Bud.
Answering oldscratch’s question:
I advocate continuing to donate blood to the Red Cross. I have NOT written letters or called or in any other way attempted to influence their screening criteria. I do NOT unconditionally support those screening criteria, but I DO support the Red Cross.
I would urge anyone, if they have strong feelings against the Red Cross, to donate blood to a different organization.
While I agree that their acceptance policies are needlessly restrictive, I’m also not answerable to blood recipients who rely on pathogen-free blood supplies. To protest what is essentially a question of medical caution on the basis of political sensibilities is, IMNSHO, fighting for ignorance, rather than against it.
I think it is a safe bet to say that there are two camps here. One, who believes that people should withhold their blood (and encouraging others to do the same) from the American Red Cross in protest of their screening policy and another camp who believes that although the screening policy is outdated and could be revised, doesn’t think withholding blood or encouraging other to withhold is the way to protest.
To help me understand better, I again ask for clarification from those in the first group. I know that a couple of you have already answered but here are my questions again.
If you were left without shelter, food, and a change of clothing because of a natural or man-made disaster, would you refuse the assistance of the American Red Cross?
If someone you love needed an emergency blood transfusion and the only blood available was from the American Red Cross, would you accept the blood or let that person die? What if you were the patient? Would you sign your life away because of your disagreement of their screening proceedures?
Is your protest only limited by what you can offer the American Red Cross but not what they can offer you?
To say that you withhold blood or encourage others from doing the same from the American Red Cross but would accept their assistance in a life or death emergency is hypocritical.
I am not saying that any of you should lay down and accept the screening process without question. I am saying that withholding blood and discouraging others to do the same is the wrong way to voice your displeasure.
To withhold services you can offer them but be willing to accept their services in your time of need makes you a hypocrite.
I agree with you Diane, but
it is frustrating that they know this and count on it.
BTW xenophon41, piss-poor attempt to piss off 90% of everyone. A truly pathetic attempt to be unreasonable.
Simple, direct, and to the point.
Say someone fucks me up the ass with a condom.
If I’m a woman, I can donate blood tomorrow.
If I’m a man, I can’t donate blood again for the rest of my life.
How is that not sex discrimination?
I have never witnessed the American Red Cross shaming people into donating by using their services as a dangling carrot.
All I am saying is that it is hypercritical to boycott an agency but be willing to accept their services in your time of need.
Matt - I don’t think anyone here has stated that the screening proceedures are 100 percent correct and not in need of some revising.
The argument is the manner of which some people go about protesting their displeasure.
I meant that they use the dire status of their clients as a a shield against criticism knowing that this disempowers their critics.
Yeah, so?
I do think that their critics need to clarify their boycott actions. If they protest the American Red Cross by refusing (and encouraging others) to donate blood, then are they also willing to boycott all services offered by the organization? Are they willing to live without food, shelter, and clothing if they are ever involved in a disaster? Are they willing to die or allow someone they love to die if the only blood available for an emergency blood transfusion is from the Red Cross?
The American Red Cross has every right to ask their critics these questions (not that I have ever heard of them asking).