FDA Says No to Gay Men Giving Blood
Gay men remain banned for life from donating blood, the government said Wednesday, leaving in place — for now — a 1983 prohibition meant to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions.
The Food and Drug Administration reiterated its long-standing policy on its Web site Wednesday, more than a year after the Red Cross and two other blood groups criticized the policy as “medically and scientifically unwarranted.”
“I am disappointed, I must confess,” said Dr. Celso Bianco, executive vice president of America’s Blood Centers, whose members provide nearly half the nation’s blood supply.
Before giving blood, all men are asked if they have had sex, even once, with another man since 1977. Those who say they have are permanently banned from donating. The FDA said those men are at increased risk of infection by HIV that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion.
I’ve witnessed this debate on campus numerous times. To be honest, it isn’t an issue that I completely understand. I mean, are “blood groups” incapable of testing the blood after donation? Because if they are not, I am totally uncomfortable with the idea of heterosexual sorostitutes (sorority girls who sleep around for kicks) being able to give blood to just anyone. Or, what if someone does not fess up to having some sort of disease, or being homosexual, or sharing needles, etc? There has to be a Plan B for discovering bad blood, right? I don’t know.
Either way, from all the whining, crying, and blubbering in this article, one would think that gay men are the people in the world not allowed to give blood.
Critics of the exclusionary policy said it bars potential healthy donors, despite the increasing need for donated blood, and discriminates against gays. The FDA recognized the policy defers many healthy donors but rejected the suggestion it’s discriminatory.
Anyone who’s used intravenous drugs or been paid for sex also is permanently barred from donating blood. (emphasis mine)
Excuse me? Who is crying out against this blatant discrimination against druggies and prostitutes? Who are you to automatically say their behavior is dangerous and unhealthy?
Sphere: Related Content
They are able to test the blood, rest assured.
As for discrimination, I would be sorta insulted if it were suggested that I were as unhealthy as druggies and prostitutes just because of with whom I had sex :p
That said, it does seem possible that just saying “no gays” could be a better use of time than testing all the samples.
Great post, Tieki Rae.
It is not politically correct, but the AIDS rate among gay men is much, much higher than in the general population. (While white, heterosexual women might be the fastest-growing demographic, that’s in percentage terms, not absolute terms. Doubling a very small number is still a very small number.) That’s bad for gays who aren’t aware of the increased need to protect themselves. I’m all for life: I want people to know of health risks.
Anyway, back to blood. The FDA’s limits on blood are beyond annoying. No one who has lived overseas for more than a few months can donate. Mad cow is the excuse for people who have lived in Britain, but it applies even to vegetarians. The rules lack any sort of sensible grounding, and, of course, the FDA really doesn’t have any business nosing around medicine, anyway. (Isn’t medicine supposed to be a state issue? Oh, wait, the FDR administration took care of federalism!)
That is why the Red Cross loves me. I actually meet all of their strange requirements. I also have scar tissue on my veins from donating so much. Grrr….
Bridget, you’re exactly right with the AIDS statistics and that’s what makes the FDA’s regulations so practical (un-federalist as they may be) as Jesse said.
As far as discrimination goes, I don’t think that this regulation is anti-gay so much as it is pro-public health.
Tammy Bruce (an odd journalist: pro-choice but a gun-toting Reaganite) is gay, but she rails against the extremes of the movement - including gays who lie so they can donate blood.
Pro-choice gays have always befuddled me….
Tieki: You’re right: the FDA regs are practical. My only concern is that, generally, the FDA has found a way to eliminate a lot of really healthy blood donors, and then it complains about the shortage.
I would happily donate three or four times a year, as there is a shortage, and they would take my blood, but, again, the scar tissue build-up makes that impractical (and not good for my own health).