Comments on: Kassing statement on blood drives

By: Leif

Leif — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:47:31 +0000

Ok. I didn’t want to–but I will rebuttle. I never said that giving blood was our civil right–instead, I said that excluding (from anything) individuals because of race, sexual orientation, etc.–is in fact, an issue of civil rights. Using the restroom isn’t considered a civil right–but when excluding certain individuals, based on race, from using certain restrooms–that is an issue of civil rights (people had to fight to use public restrooms at one point–now they must fight to give blood–progress?). Was that a simple enough example for you, Bill? And bill, thank you for having this discussion–I respect your point of view… mine just differs; that doesn’t mean our debate can’t be constructive.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:25:33 +0000

whereas I am sure I do not agree on many things with Lief, I am sure I do not agree that giving blood is a civil right. The organizations that use it and the orgnaization that regulates it are not bound to give ‘that right’ to anyone - how silly to equate this with civil liberties - who are you kidding - you want your life style to be the one that is promoted not another. that is the issue. You have no problem claiming your rights are being violated when you don’t get something but you sure don’t want someone else getting something if it is against your moral beliefs. How hypocritical is that. I think my civil rights have just been violated…

By: Leif

Leif — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:17:49 +0000

I believe in President Don Kassing–and his willingness to speak out against discrimination, because in fact, not allowing gay men to give blood is discrimination. Is blood not tested once it is given? Or, if you’re not a gay man–does everyone just assume that your blood is clean? Not true. So, President Don Kassing–thank you for taking this stance… and it’s really up to the FDA now to get blood drives back to SJSU. This isn’t a politically motivated issue–in fact, it’s an issue of civil rights, which is an ongoing struggle in our country. The comment above mine “politically motivated by a small MINORITY of people.” I believe that quote is in reality the root of this issue.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:59:51 +0000

I guess I do not understand why President Kassin must make this his personal political/social agenda item. The list from the FDA and Red Cross contain a significant number of guidelines designed to limit the risk of tainted blood entering the system. The only discrimination that can be read into this is in his personal opinion. His logic would also create a class for those with tatoos that are newer than 12 months or people who have piercing from states that don’t regulate such insistitutions. Or maybe he wants a special class of exceptions to be made for those folks who use illegal drugs. Or perhaps he has just crawled out from a rock and doesn’t realize that there is as much risk (if not more) in tainted blood from sexually active gay men as there is from some of these other folks. Please, wake up. Read your local paper, visit a web site or two and then try and form a policy that isn’t politically motivated by some small minority of the people albeit vocal and well connected to money.