Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,164
- Reaction score
- 5
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...801&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
The Canadian Blood Services (CBS) agency has an appropriate motto: "It's a right to receive blood and a privilege to give it."
But the agency is wrong to deny that privilege to the deaf. It is treating those who can't hear as second-class citizens by excluding them as a group, rather than looking for a way to include them.
An agency spokesperson gave two reasons for the policy after Lois Buckley, a Peterborough woman who is deaf and required an interpreter, was told she would not be allowed to donate blood at the local CBS clinic. Both relate to the use of interpreters when prospective donors are interviewed about their medical and sexual history.
The first is a privacy concern, according to CBS media relations director Ron Vezina. Asking questions about medical history in the presence of a third person — the interpreter — may violate privacy legislation, he said.
However, by agreeing to do the interview through an interpreter, a deaf donor is consenting to discuss his or her medical history and obviously is not concerned about a privacy violation. Buckley and other deaf people make that same decision when they use interpreters at a hospital or clinic.
It's the second concern that obviously has prompted the ban on donors who need an interpreter — not just the deaf, but anyone not fluent in French or English. The fear is that someone with a history of drug use, sexually transmitted diseases or behaviour that could lead to such diseases might be too embarrassed to admit to those practices if a third person is in the room.
But is that a valid concern? And if so, is there not some way around it?
As Buckley and Maggie Doherty-Gilbert, regional director for the Canadian Hearing Society, point out, thousands of deaf people regularly use interpreters to convey confidential information to doctors or testify in the courts. If the justice system will accept testimony given through an interpreter that may convict someone of murder, surely information given in a blood donor interview can be trusted.
The questionnaire all prospective blood donors must answer has two parts, both requiring yes or no answers.
The first 13 questions deal primarily with prescription drug use and medical conditions; donors read them and mark yes or no on a paper form.
The next 16 questions focus on illegal drug use and sexual practices. A CBS interviewer asks those questions verbally and donors must answer before the boxes are checked yes or no.
Donors sign a declaration that they have answered truthfully and provide the name of their family doctor, who may be sent a copy of the form. That process seems to be just as good a safeguard for the deaf as it is for the hearing, since the interviewer is watching the response in both cases.
But if Canadian Blood Services believes that is not the case, it should work with the Canadian Hearing Society to come up with an alternative.
The only other response is to continue discriminating against Lois Buckley and all deaf people who want to perform a public service.
The Canadian Blood Services (CBS) agency has an appropriate motto: "It's a right to receive blood and a privilege to give it."
But the agency is wrong to deny that privilege to the deaf. It is treating those who can't hear as second-class citizens by excluding them as a group, rather than looking for a way to include them.
An agency spokesperson gave two reasons for the policy after Lois Buckley, a Peterborough woman who is deaf and required an interpreter, was told she would not be allowed to donate blood at the local CBS clinic. Both relate to the use of interpreters when prospective donors are interviewed about their medical and sexual history.
The first is a privacy concern, according to CBS media relations director Ron Vezina. Asking questions about medical history in the presence of a third person — the interpreter — may violate privacy legislation, he said.
However, by agreeing to do the interview through an interpreter, a deaf donor is consenting to discuss his or her medical history and obviously is not concerned about a privacy violation. Buckley and other deaf people make that same decision when they use interpreters at a hospital or clinic.
It's the second concern that obviously has prompted the ban on donors who need an interpreter — not just the deaf, but anyone not fluent in French or English. The fear is that someone with a history of drug use, sexually transmitted diseases or behaviour that could lead to such diseases might be too embarrassed to admit to those practices if a third person is in the room.
But is that a valid concern? And if so, is there not some way around it?
As Buckley and Maggie Doherty-Gilbert, regional director for the Canadian Hearing Society, point out, thousands of deaf people regularly use interpreters to convey confidential information to doctors or testify in the courts. If the justice system will accept testimony given through an interpreter that may convict someone of murder, surely information given in a blood donor interview can be trusted.
The questionnaire all prospective blood donors must answer has two parts, both requiring yes or no answers.
The first 13 questions deal primarily with prescription drug use and medical conditions; donors read them and mark yes or no on a paper form.
The next 16 questions focus on illegal drug use and sexual practices. A CBS interviewer asks those questions verbally and donors must answer before the boxes are checked yes or no.
Donors sign a declaration that they have answered truthfully and provide the name of their family doctor, who may be sent a copy of the form. That process seems to be just as good a safeguard for the deaf as it is for the hearing, since the interviewer is watching the response in both cases.
But if Canadian Blood Services believes that is not the case, it should work with the Canadian Hearing Society to come up with an alternative.
The only other response is to continue discriminating against Lois Buckley and all deaf people who want to perform a public service.
I never heard of a being refused of giving a blood donation if you are deaf and needs an interpreter.
:P 