Posted on 03/13/2005 3:16:21 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
I AM writing in response to a Sunday News editorial, "Education lacking: UNH Senate AIDS issue shows it," that was published Feb. 27. As the author of the UNH Senate Resolution that the editorial referred to, I feel obligated to respond and clear up some of the apparent confusion among the editorial staff.
The current FDA regulation banning any man who has had sex with another man at any time since 1977 from donating blood were instituted in the early 1980s as a precaution against the spread of the HIV virus and AIDS through the blood supply. It was the correct decision at the time. In the climate of fear and uncertainty about this deadly infection, the authorities had no other choice but to err on the side of safety.
Today, however, the scientific knowledge and understanding of HIV and how it spreads has advanced. The FDA policy of banning sexually active gay men for life from donating blood is not backed up by science. There is no scientific, medical or ethical justification for the ban.
What once seemed like a necessary precaution has become a discriminatory practice perpetuating the bigotry and prejudice that sexually active gay men are somehow a danger and a threat to the rest of society. Add to this that it is medically counterproductive at a time when the country is facing increasing threats from blood shortages.
Contrary to what was stated in the editorial, the Red Cross is the only major blood donation organization to oppose any change in the FDA policy. In fact, the largest blood donation organization in the country, America's Blood Centers, as well as the American Association of Blood Banks, support changing the current policy. With today's effective screening procedures of blood donors and testing of all donated blood, every major blood donor organization in the country, except for the Red Cross, supports a change in policy to a one-year deferral as opposed to a lifetime ban, and some scientists advocate for a two-week deferral for male homosexual blood donors.
FDA statistics estimate that approximately 10 units of tainted blood slip through the blood banks each year, potentially infecting one to two people per year. If the FDA changed its policy to a one-year deferral on men who have had sex with another man since 1977, the FDA predicts that over 62,300 more men would donate blood, while an additional three units of tainted blood would slip through the blood supply.
If 10 units of blood potentially infects one to two people per year, then 13 units would potentially infect one to three people, while over 176,000 more people would potentially be protected from the dangers of blood shortages.
If the FDA truly wanted the safest blood supply possible, it would require all donors to be asked about safe sex practices. The real high risk factor for contracting HIV, gay or straight, is unsafe sex.
Being gay and having safe homosexual sex does not put you at any more risk of HIV than being straight and having safe heterosexual sex. With the current policy, a straight man can have unsafe sex with dozens of women and still donate blood, while a gay man who has had sex with a monogamous partner just once in the past 28 years can never give blood.
The Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire supports scientifically based filters on blood donation to make the blood banks as safe as possible, while eliminating practices that are discriminatory and counterproductive.
The editorial accused me of pushing a gay agenda. Even though this issue does affect gay people, it is an issue of fundamental civil rights and sensible health policies. That is not a gay agenda but an American agenda. It is for everyone who needed blood but couldn't get it because the Red Cross supports turning away thousands of perfectly healthy donors at their doors just because the donors have engaged in gay sex.
This is communist thinking at its purest. According to this pinhead, we should all an inseperable group, sharing in eachother's problems.
To get us there, he wants to ensure that we share the same problems as the Homosexuals.
I seem to remember some radical gay agenda from the 1990s that wanted gay men to infect hetero women so that the HIV problem would get more Hetero attention. Anybody have an article about that?
You sir are a total nerd.
BTW, that was a great episode.
The Romulan ends up dying and Wolf refuses to give his blood to him.
Ok, as long as only gay people are given gay men's blood.
Didn't deal with that issue at all. That would be more analogous to a race issue, not a sexual behavior issue.
Because they know AIDS is, as tragic as it is, a relatively small demographic so they don't hold as much funding clout as they'd like. One way to increase that demographic is to create an epidemic of people who do not participate in these risky behaviors.
btw my post at 63 - I didn't realize you were quoting. Glad to see you didn't REALLY agree with that. :-)
Thats a lie, a complete lie. This kind of crap has been sold to our adoloscents as truth. It first appeared in the late 80's to early 90's in order to sell AIDS research and the alternative lifestyle to the rich suburbs. The chances are tons higher for people of "alternative lifestyles".
Its the equivalent to saying that the chances are equal between a beer drinker and a herion user.
"If the FDA truly wanted the safest blood supply possible, it would require all donors to be asked about safe sex practices."
I believe we are if I recall.
"If the FDA truly wanted the safest blood supply possible, it would require all donors to be asked about safe sex practices."
I believe we are if I recall.
Believe what you want. They do this because they don't want to be accused of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Wake up and smell the roses.
And people like me cannot donate blood because of time spent overseas, yet theses guys who willingly expose themselves to fatal diseases want to be able to donate to the general public.
But then again, what kind of judgement can you expect from men who play with other men's genitals?
I was just observing that what was said in the article should happen already does happen. Perhaps you should let the meds kick in before posting.
I was just observing that what was said in the article should happen already does happen. Perhaps you should let the meds kick in before posting.
I just observed what you just said and I believe your meds have kicked in since what you wrote makes absolutely no sense.
I just read this today, and I completely agree that this is sick, another way to spread their disease to everybody else. This should be met with extreme caution in relation to public health (I remember the Chinese government threatening to shoot people that deliberately spread the SARS virus a few years ago).
As a student in the UC school, I am aware that there is an agenda among the LGBT clubs, including lobbying the Red Cross to change eligibility requirements. Check out their recommendations here: http://www.uclgbtia.org/blood.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.