• November 20, 2014
  • Welcome!
    Welcome | (Logout)
  • RSS
  • Contact
  • Archives
  • About

Alligator

Bad Blood: FDA should not restrict gay men from donating

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Monday, November 30, 2009 1:05 am

If you’ve just been in a horrible car accident and you’re bleeding to death on a surgeon’s table, would you refuse a blood transfusion from a gay man?

Some might. This is largely because of a stigma surrounding the prevalence of HIV in the gay community, especially among gay men. In light of this concern, the Food and Drug Administration has enacted guidelines that ban sexually active gay men from donating blood.

But put it another way: Would you accept a transfusion from a black person? How about from someone (anyone) living in Washington, D.C.?

The number of refusals would surely drop, even though these groups are at an increasing risk for HIV, a rate fast approaching that of the gay community.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, half of all diagnoses in 2007 came from the black community. A full 3 percent of Washington, D.C., residents have HIV (4 percent among black residents), according to an article in Time Magazine. Middle-aged people in Washington suffer from HIV at a rate of 7 percent, and this is even higher in the middle-aged black community.

Granted, these figures are less than the double-digit infection rates of gay men in some communities, but unfortunately, they are quickly catching up.

So why not ban all black people from giving blood — or, even better, all middle-aged residents of Washington, D.C.? Because that would be an absurd and politically disastrous choice.

Singling out the gay community is a much easier and politically palatable decision for the FDA to make. These guidelines stem from the panic and rash actions that swept the nation in the early 1980s, after AIDS was deemed a “gay disease,” and rates began to soar (among all populations).

But to single out any group, “high risk” or not, is unnecessary. All blood donations are tested for HIV, along with hepatitis and other viral and bacterial infections.

Thankfully, the FDA’s ban is simply an added precaution. So, you wonder, how can an added precaution possibly hurt anyone?

Tens of thousands of people donate blood every day, a full 500,000 in the days immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. Because of these FDA regulations, all male blood donors must indicate that they have not had sexual contact with another man since 1977. All female donors must declare that they have not had sex with a man who might have had sexual contact with another man during the past 12 months. (“I hope not” was not one of the answer choices.)

By exposing such a large number of people to questions like this every day, the FDA is perpetuating the false notion that AIDS is a gay disease. It clearly isn’t. Heterosexual sex is the fastest growing transmission method, and a lack of awareness about this issue is blamed for the  pandemic-level infection rates in Washington, D.C.

The ban also adds to the chronic shortage of blood for the 4.5 million blood transfusions needed each year.

Ultimately, these regulations represent yet another facet of life that is unequal for gay people. The guidelines may have been enacted with the health of all Americans in mind, but the fact that they were enacted in a time of panic and bigotry is undeniable.

If a ban like this were placed on virtually any other group, there would be widespread anger and protest, but because of the long-standing stigma — perpetuated by the ban itself — it goes largely unchallenged.

We believe that it’s time to stop perpetuating this false stereotype and accept the gracious blood donations of any and all healthy donors.

Lifesaving does not have a sexual preference.

Welcome to the discussion.

4 comments:

  • rushell posted at 8:14 pm on Tue, Dec 1, 2009.

    rushell Posts: 48

    What an idiotic opinion.

     
  • RainDogGator posted at 1:34 pm on Tue, Dec 1, 2009.

    RainDogGator Posts: 555

    There you go, editors. The previous post gives you an example of another group of people (servive men and women who were posted overseas) prohibited from giving blood. I don't see any anger or protest on their behalf.

    You can argue against any particular rule (personally I think the mad cow rule sillier than the AIDS rules). But you can't claim this is devised to discriminate against homosexuals.

     
  • Retirednco posted at 7:42 pm on Mon, Nov 30, 2009.

    Retirednco Posts: 1

    I recently found out that I have bad blood according to the standards currently in use. It's not that I lived a risky life style or that I'm gay. I just had the honor of serving my country. In 1981 I was transferred to England for a short time and because of that deployment I am on a permanent can not donate list. It was explained to me that since England had cases of mad cow disease around that time they don't want to take any chances. It's been almost thirty years since I was there and you would think that the VA or the government would do some kind of testing to see if there is a reason for the ban.

     
  • RainDogGator posted at 3:07 pm on Mon, Nov 30, 2009.

    RainDogGator Posts: 555

    What about all the questions about travel to sub-Saharan Africa? Is this also out of bounds? What about the questions about drug use?

    It is not insensible to screen blood donors for at-risk behavior. Your example of DC residents is silly. Living in DC does not cause a person to contract AIDS. Engaging in one of several behaviors does elevate the risk of contracting AIDS.

    Also, in the "interview" procress, you are told that there is an interval of time after contraction in which HIV tests are unreliable. I presume this carries over to the taken blood as well. Hence the additional behavioral screening.