Since the mid-1980s, the Red Cross — with FDA support — has prohibited men who have had sex with men, at any time since 1977, from donating blood.
That’s right — 1977. Twenty-eight years ago. This prohibition remains in place despite the testing that is already done to ensure that blood is uninfected. FDA medical officer Andrew Dayton estimated that, if 62,300 U.S. gay men were permitted to donate blood, 1.7 additional units of infected blood would slip past screening and enter the public blood supply.
As far as I can tell, no comparable review was done to determine the number of infected units that slip past screening because the Red Cross permits donations by nonmonogamous heterosexuals.
The Red Cross/FDA policy has occasionally prompted me to wonder whether the organizations are afraid of AIDS — or “gay” body fluids.
This concern rose anew last week, when media such as the Southern Voice reported that the FDA will advise U.S. sperm banks to prohibit anonymous donations by gay men who have had sex in the past five years. The recommended ban ignores whether a given man practices monogamy, uses condoms, or tests free from infection both before and after the donation.
The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association announced, in a May 16 press release:
“The FDA’s published opinion in last year’s Draft Guidance Document that clinics should not allow men who have sex with men, even those in monogamous relationships, to make non-directed sperm donations ignores good science and good sense,” Joel Ginsberg, GLMA Executive Director stated. “And the fact that the FDA recommends no such barriers for men who exclusively have sex with women — regardless of their number of partners, use of condoms or knowledge of their partners’ HIV status — makes no sense.”
By doing nothing to discourage unsafe sex among heterosexual men, the FDA recommendation seems to actually increase the risk of HIV infection among heterosexuals.
News of the FDA action leaves quite a few questions unanswered:
Are Red Cross and federal officials afraid of HIV — as they should be — or are they afraid of gay sperm creating children with a potential biological inclination toward homosexuality?
And if gay men are banned, then will exgay men who remain sexually active with men also be banned from anonymous sperm donations?
And who, among either gays or exgays, is more likely to be honest with sperm banks about their sexual activities for the past five years?
Few policy makers seem interested in science or logic anymore. Look at how Bush and O’Keefe twisted the NAS study on Hubble into a recommendation that it be destroyed, when the actual conclusion was only that a robotic mission would likely fail. Or look at how Bush is sending tax dollars to “faith-based” organizations that go around Africa saying that condoms cause AIDS. Or look at “intelligent design.” Or look at how Bush used junk sociology to claim that blacks get the short end of the Social Security stick, so therefore it must be phased out.
I’ve long been offended by the blood ban. But the issue runs a lot deeper than just homophobia–it’s the denigration of science for political ends, and it can only be fixed if the real scientists stop pretending that silence equals objectivity and come out swinging. Scientists routinely engage in heated debate to defend their work amongst their peers–now they need to hit the airwaves and defend science in general from those who would pervert it.
At some point, this becomes more than a bit stupid. If a gay man wants to “donate” sperm, all he needs to do is to “check the other box.” The sperm freezer is going to have to check the “donation” for the possibility that the “donation” might result in an STD anyway.
What are they going to do? Discriminate based on zip code? We live in a town whose zip code is probably fairly liberal, but is not known for having a large number of gay people.
If a gay man wants to “donate” sperm, all he needs to do is to “check the other box.”
EXACTLY, raj. When I was closeted, I routinely gave blood. My parents always told me it was the right thing to do, and it was a great way of maintaining my heterosexual bona fides. I clearly lied to them to donate (and have tested negative three times since my last donation, so no worries there), so they are only catching the honest gay men with the ban – and they are probably the most likely to use condoms (or at least be honest about their sexual histories in order to determine true risk).
IIRC, you cannot donate for a year (possibly five years) if you have had traded money or drugs for sex, but you can never give if you got a b-j from another guy in high school in the 70s.
Raj and CPT,
I know that the point you are making is that their policy is at it’s base ineffective. But you misunderstand their purpose. The intolerant right don’t necessarily care if we donate blood or sperm. They just want us back in the closet.
They want us to feel shame. They want us to deny who we are. And they want the public to feel comfortable with two sets of rules, one for the good people, and one for the faggots.
As long as we play a part in the lie, we contribute to our own opression.