As per usual, my (non-music-related) addition to the blog is a reaction. I wish I could come to the blog-o-sphere with some new affirmative truths wrestled from the beast of ignorance and ideology but unfortunately those have to go through the rites of passage first (namely the ridicule and insults of friends and colleagues) before they are battle-tested enough for the permanence of print (even web-print has some permanence). Not to mention I don't want the three people who read my blog to steal my new ideas - its a capitalist world out there and I gotta protect my few assets (joking of course, you'll be the first to pilfer whatever it is I know).Anyway, without further ado, the stimulus:
The student union at McGill University is refusing to allow blood donation drives in its buildings until Quebec's blood collection agency agrees to accept donations from homosexual men.
Héma-Québec screens donors by means of a questionnaire.
Among other questions, it asks whether male would-be donors have had sex with another man at any time since 1977. If they answer yes, they are not allowed to give blood.
Health Canada put the policy in place after the tainted blood scandal of the early 1990s, to prevent blood infected with HIV from getting into the health-care system, but the McGill student union calls it discriminatory.
Aaron Donny-Clark, president of the Students' Society of McGill University, says it is a question of dignity.
"Some of our students have passed these people with the buttons, eating the cookies or whatever, and know that the only reason they can't give blood has nothing to do with their blood, nothing to do with anything relevant at all," he told CBC News.
"We just can't stand for that."
Health Canada must approve change
André Roch, vice-president of public affairs for Héma-Québec, acknowledges that the screening question is outdated. New blood tests have been developed that make it easier to screen for AIDS, he said.
However, he said Health Canada must give the go-ahead before Héma-Québec's donor questionnaire can be changed.
Héma-Québec has recommended that only men who have had sex with another man in the previous 12 months should be prohibited from giving blood, Roch said.
This is not the first time the blood donor question has caused controversy in Quebec.
In January, Héma-Québec shut down a blood drive taking place in the William Shatner University Centre on the McGill campus.
"This decision became necessary after an anonymous note encouraging potential donors to lie on their blood donation questionnaire was posted within the premises of the centre," the agency said in a news release posted on its website.
In 2004, the province's largest school board, the Commission scolaire de Montréal, cancelled a blood drive at its office as it pressed for the question about past sexual activity between men to be dropped.
Full-text available at the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/11/13/mtl-blood-drives.html
Nothing extraordinarily surprising here, Quebec youth and students have long been at the forefront of political activism and the quest for equity - when it comes to "progressiveness" - that gooey non-substance - they get it and put it into action post haste.
Now as to the 'meat' of the text, the so-called dispute as framed by the CBC and likely by the Students' Union themselves is the "discriminatory" nature of the blood questionnaire. What is interesting, however, is that the idea that the questionnaire is "discriminatory" is itself an allegation or in contention at all. Is not the point of a questionnaire to discriminate? They are not asking the questions for the sake of asking - it is for the sake of selection, a discriminating behavior par excellence.
Which brings me to the larger question: to discriminate or not to discriminate?
In today's context this hardly seems a legitimate question. The discourses of many on the left and right have unified into a sort of 'politically-correct' leviathan which threaten all who oppose it with charges of anti-**** or that. To discriminate, in its essence, has become evil - the mark of the racist or sexist. But let's rewind to the dictionary entry of discrimination:
1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
2. to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.
3. to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate: a mark that discriminates the original from the copy.
4. to note or distinguish as different: He can discriminate minute variations in tone.
5. marked by discrimination; making or evidencing nice distinctions: discriminate people; discriminate judgments.
Care of Dictionary.com
Without getting into any of the nuts and bolts of this definition, I will say that it speaks to me clearly as the essence of difference, particularly observing it and at times action taken upon noting it.
Clearly, "discrimination" is a neutral term and one only has to remember its positive inclinations to be rescued from the abyss of one-sidedness where this term has been thrown. Examples being, of couse, "discriminating taste" or the ability to "discriminate right from wrong", etc.
So, what happened to discrimination?
It would be ahistorical to look over how difference has been cast in the last... forever-many years. Its negative connotation did not come about magically but through the very sufferings of millions of people because of a "noted or observed difference". This includes, of course, discrimination of race, gender, ability and sexual orientation. But is the answer the destruction of discrimination?
Returning to the article, the McGill Students' Union's charge against the survey is simple, it discriminates. Not exactly a nuanced argument, which gives an idea to the weight the word carries in itself. One need not say more - "discrimination" carries its own 'recriminations'. But is the abolishment of difference the answer to a millennium or more of the persecution of difference? Is the answer a making-homogeneous? Or rather a time to "celebrate difference" to use the cliched saying that seems to be the banner of the same people who are actively out to erase differences of any kind.
Speaking again of the questionnaire, its job is to go beyond politics (something I will not say with certainty that it does) and deal with medical realities. Some of the questions on the questionnaire pointedly ask where you have been in your lifetime or recent travels, with the countries listed being some of the poorest in the world and not simply by coincidence. I myself, a frequent blood-giver in my youth (I'm a grizzled old man now) was prohibited from giving blood for a year because of my travels in Central America, due to the prevalence of tropical diseases. A friend of mine who accompanied me once to give blood was also rejected, something about using cocaine not being cool?!? I dunno where that came from, but I'm no doctor. Certainly these examples too are discrimination. Not to mention, we also had to pass by the table of cookies (mmm fudgios) with a certain sadness in our hearts knowing that we couldn't help those who needed it. I managed to survive by realizing it wasn't personal, it was statistical, my friend returned to doing blow to get over his grief.
From HealthCanada's perspective, it couldn't take the risk after blood scandal upon blood scandal, including the giving of HIV-infected blood to patients, effectively signing their death certificates, the cardinal sin of the medical profession. Which begs the question - for whom is giving blood? Us donors or the receivers? If giving blood is some kind of 'right' of the giver, then perhaps I could understand one's desire to give blood regardless of their suitability to the operation (which one should note is expensive given the blood screenings and would become more so the less 'pre-discrimination' is required) much like how people who have nothing important to say (ie. me) have the right to blab on blogs. But if giving blood is not a right of the donor then what's the fuss? Last I checked giving blood wasn't an equity issue.
As to the science behind the questionnaire, if it is poor, advocate for its change. The strategy of evicting HealthCanada and a blood donation station from Students' Union property seems to me a serious blunder that seeks to propel a new group of "politically-correct" experts above the medical ones - to the detriment of blood recipients. As to strategies of lying on the questionnaire in order to give blood, I can only refer to that as an appalling lack of self-restraint and misguided desire to help.
In sum, I can say I applaud the McGill students' union for stirring the pot as to the legitimacy of the questions asked by Health Canada, but the motives of and actions undertaken by the students' union are extremely questionable and concretely detrimental to hospital patients. Furthermore, the politically-correct agenda taken to extremes, as in this instance, reveals the paradoxical nature inherent in any rational or 'progressive' model pushed to its limits. In this case, the attempt to subvert medicine to the dictum of equality start to become absurd - and while I'm no fan of the power of medicine, the idea that it should take its marching orders from the McGill Students' Union is somewhat unsettling.
This issue appears as the flip-side of the coin, the heads to the tails that the Bush administration is using to discriminate and persecute people at his leisure. But to return to the notion of "discriminating taste" as a refinement of the palette to detect even the most subtle degrees of difference, I would argue that what we need now is more discrimination, not less. More as in that heightened ability to seek the smaller differences that separate not just ethnicity from ethnicity, gender from gender, (that's for amateur's) but terrorist from tourist. A difficult task for certain, but one that re-embraces the notion of difference rather than suppressing it. It is in this way that we can truly "celebrate difference".
10 comments:
trying to comment... political correctness filter... struggling... struggling...
shamefully, it's been a while since i gave blood, so i could be wrong about this but i seem to remember a question on the questionnaire for heterosexuals about whether or not they'd had unprotected sex recently and whether or not they'd had anal sex since 1977 or whatever. in other words, heterosexuals who like butt sex and/or raw sex with multiple partners get rejected too.
i wanted to say something controversial here, but honestly, i agree with everything you said (which might be a controversey itself). hey, when did you become so level-headed? ;)
I'm not level-headed, is an illusion. And you're right, I should have probably included that in the blog. Technically the questionnaire does not even single out homosexual men, its any man who has had "butt sex" as you put it, which could mean (relatively) straight men, bisexuals, two-spirited types, transgendereds, etc. while even sparing homosexuals who are abstinent (as it seems the act does not define the individual anyway)!
Quick correction: If you check out the questionnaire at http://www.hema-quebec.qc.ca/media/anglais/dondesang/dossierdonsang_a.pdf you would see that its not heterosexuals who like anal sex or people who've had raw sex, it's "have you had sex with a male, even once, since 1977", which hema-quebec itself has stated isn't up-to-date with modern science.
Anonymous: You are right, as I said in my comment above, it asks any man if they have had sex.
Thus it does not target homosexuality per se.
According to the statement from Hema-quebec, an updated question will still ask whether or not the male donor has had sex but will change the time requirement to "within the year" rather than since 1977.
From the viewpoint of the argument pitched forth by the Students' Union, this would no more or less target homosexuals and would still be discrimination.
The limitations of media always skews these things... there was a second resolution passed by the student union to actively lobby Health Canada to change their policy to one that reflects the advances in the blood screening process in the last decade and to descriminate based on relevant high risk behaviours, instead of categories of people.
Finn:
Are you a member of McGill SU or a McGill student? If so that's very cool that you ended up posting here and I defer to your knowledge of the union's activities.
As I said in the blog I applaud the effort to raise questions regarding the legitimacy of the survey. Although, as the "Anonymous" commenter indicated the questionnaire does not categorize people (ie. as homosexual, heterosexual). It asks about a specific activity which is statistically linked to greater instances of HIV/AIDS.
In this same vein, studies that, for instance have linked higher rates of diabetes among asians vis-a-vis white or black groups could be deemed discriminatory. I find such a claim ludicrous and it shows the will to dissolve difference rather than admit its historical and biological existence.
Lastly, my issue with McGill SU is not simply their reasoning. It is their actions - barring blood donation based on weak evidence of categorical discrimination (that being male-on-male intercourse not limited to homosexuality).
Actually, the questionnaire specifically states: MALE donors: "Have you had sex with another male, even once, since 1977?"-thus targeting specifically homosexual/bisexual men. If this doesn't target homosexual donors per se, I don't know what does.
Furthermore, the practice that you speak of that is directly linked to a greater prevalence of AIDS, is UNPROTECTED anal sex. The question phrased the way it is now discriminates against homosexual men point finale. A practice that lead to a greater prevalence of AIDS is UNPROTECTED SEX PRACTICES in any form.
Also, the Student Society is NOT banning blood drives from campus, as the media and others have assumed, the Student Society doesn't even have the jurisdiction to do so-the Society is banning drives from the Student Building, i.e. the building that house the affected student groups (those that are discriminated against).
Anonymous: Thanks again for posting.
Let's clarify: I specifically stated "The strategy of evicting Health Canada and a blood donation station from Students' Union property". Thus, I didn't not state campus.
Secondly, I am not denying there is discrimination. The point of my post is that discrimination is a necessary thing - a positive thing when used rightly.
I have no doubt that homosexual men will find themselves targeted more often by that question than heterosexual men, however, it is not limited to them. Much like a question asking about diabetes may target more Asians than Caucasians. This is not "discrimination" in the negative sense. It is unfortunate that biologically AIDS is communicable through anal sex easier than through vaginal sex. And although UNPROTECTED sex would obviously yield much higher chances of infection that does not make PROTECTED anal sex less risk vis-a-vis vaginal sex. Wishing it were so (the "should" "ought" desire) does not make it so. Unfortunately for all of us equality-seekers, certain activities carry with them certain risks. Biology does not recognize socio-historical circumstances. It does not see our divisions of people into homo and hetero-sexual. Thus arguments that it should respect these artificial categories are delirious.
My point is to realize that discrimination does happen, that people and activities can be different although worthy of equal rights. Homosexual men may be at higher risk to HIV/AIDS, that should not lower them in our eyes but we should be conscientious of that for blood donation, amongst other activities.
And that "discrimination" will not disappear with the new proposal which still targets "homosexual" or male-on-male sex, but shortens the time-span. My argument is simply that it is naive to cast this debate in terms of hetero vs homo-sexuality.
I guess I’m taking the opposite argument here because I really don’t see the McGill Student’s Union as pushing any sort of “politically-correct agenda taken to extremes”. I don’t believe in any political discrimination organized by agents of the state or even nationally sweeping non profits so I applaud their goal even if I think their tactics are counterproductive.
Anal sex might be more conducive for transmitting the HIV virus, but for that fact to have any merit the individuals in question have to somehow come into contact with the virus. Which, of course, is nearly impossible if people are monogamous and employ protection during sex (failed blood transfusions aside). I suppose I would prefer to see a questionnaire that worried more about the individual’s choices and behaviors in regards to safe sex. A straight man that laughs at condoms and has a different partner every weekend is far more likely to carry the virus then two gay males who have been monogamous with each other for thirty years and wear protection during sex.
I was opposed to driving regulations that targeted specific groups because of statistics instead of focusing on individual records and I’m opposed to the blood donor policies for similar reasons.
Cheers
Shayne
"So I applaud their goal even if I think their tactics are counterproductive"
See this is what I see as a fundamental mistake. Obviously any one can point out that there are exceptions to a situation. Example: a gay man that is monogamous vs a straight man that is not. But all that is individualistic and relative. What is important is this. There is x quantity of donors, what is way to produce the highest quantity of 'clean' blood (y). So if we take the assertion that male-on-male sex is higher risk for AIDS transmission, statistically, then it is a legitimate question.
But that is not what is being raised by the SU. No one cares about the risks, the objective data. There is only a concern with the such and such individual which might be OK and feels bad. That is an atomistic and impossible stance that put to its logical conclusion would eliminate the whole purpose of a screening in favour of "equal rights" (to non-rights based scenarios like donating blood) and result in more dollars spent in trying to screen or more blood scandals.
All of which I'm sure the PC-police would be happy to endorse as long as we don't possibly ever exclude an individual case. This hyper-individualism is the problem. The arguments advanced on its side generally completely reject any science in any form that puts forward an assertion. Individualism trumps the collective - even in an act that in essence is collectivist. This is the ludicrous nature of entering a completely non-discriminatory system.
Post a Comment