Gay men should be able to donate blood, students say College group pressures Red Cross

WASHINGTON - For more than a decade, gay rights advocates have grumbled about a federal policy that forbids blood donation by men who have had sex with men.

They say that the policy, originally intended to keep HIV-positive blood from entering the nation's blood supply, implies gay men are inherently sick and that it prevents healthy people from donating.

Occasional protests and talks with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which oversees blood banks, have brought no change.

Now, some college students have taken up the cause, and they're taking a new tack. Instead of pressuring the FDA directly, they are going after the American Red Cross - the largest and highest-profile blood collector in the country.

Unlike America's Blood Centers, which represents the non-Red Cross blood banks that collect most of the nation's blood, the Red Cross publicly supports the policy. Activists say that if they can get the Red Cross to change its stance, the FDA will follow.

While many gay rights advocates have treated the blood ban as a low priority, college groups have begun to take on the issue. They argue that, although safe blood supplies are essential, this particular policy is outdated, ineffective and homophobic.

I did not get ANY confidential outs when I tried to give blood to help a shortage at my local hospital.

I was refused, plain and simple. Why? Because I had LIVED IN EUROPE for more than 6 years since the 1980s. Boom, out the door. I was furious.

Now when I hear about blood drives and the need for more donated blood, it only makes me mad.

Oh, the reason they gave? Mad cow disease. Never mind that I was practically a vegetarian back then, and was not in a country that had ever experienced mad cow. And they are even stricter about the military: if they were stationed for more than 6 months in Europe, they may not give blood. Ever.

Perhaps it can be said that years ago AIDS was much more prevalent against male homosexuals, but to maintain that stance nowadays is somewhat ignorant. The number of heterosexuals who are contracting the virus is very much on the increase..people can no longer be exempt from donating blood simply because of their sexual orientation, it is clearly an issue of whether or not a person lives a risky lifestyle. It is NOT just gay men who partake in these risky activities. Believe it or not but straight blood also poses as a risk to the system, admittedly not to the same extent as that derived from gay men, but there really isn't as much of a divide as you believe there to be.

In addition, can I also point out that college students are far from stupid, I think you have forgetten that you are insulting the country's future doctors and lawyers when generalising in such a manner.

Finally, I wish to point out that

Perhaps it can be said that years ago AIDS was much more prevalent against male homosexuals, but to maintain that stance nowadays is somewhat ignorant.

OK. Put up or shut up. What is the rate of exposure to AIDS in the heterosexual community as opposed to the group of men who have sex with men?

Don't know? Well guess. Is it twenty times the rate? Ten times? Five times? At what ratio of exposure do you expect the public health authorities to bury their heads in the sand and declare that the two blood supplies can be treated as equal?

The number of heterosexuals who are contracting the virus is very much on the increase..

And heterosexuals who engage in risky sexual behavior are excluded from giving blood. This includes people who have had sex with a prostitute in the previous 12 months, people who have had sex with IV drug abusers and women who have sex with a man who has had sex with a man. There are all sorts of ways heterosexuals can contract AIDS, and there are all sorts of ways to get excluded from the donor list.

...people can no longer be exempt from donating blood simply because of their sexual orientation, it is clearly an issue of whether or not a person lives a risky lifestyle. It is NOT just gay men who partake in these risky activities.

I have no problem with excluding blood from the system of anybody who engages in high risk activity. This would include heterosexuals who are not particularly choosy about who they sleep with and pretty much all men who have sex with men.

Believe it or not but straight blood also poses as a risk to the system, admittedly not to the same extent as that derived from gay men, but there really isn't as much of a divide as you believe there to be.

And the blood banks are doing everything they can do to screen out tainted blood. I donated just last Thursday, and went through a 10 minute question and answer about a sexual contact I had 26 years ago with a woman who was born in Tanzania and but not been there since 1965. They are uncomfortable questions, but they don't care so much about my feelings as the quality of my blood.

In addition, can I also point out that college students are far from stupid, I think you have forgetten that you are insulting the country's future doctors and lawyers when generalising in such a manner.

I am not generalising (sic) about all college students, future doctors and lawyers they might be. I'm am insulting the idiots who think that the blood banks should ignore the obvious risk factors when screening donors out of some stupid notion of equal treatment. I would dare say that most college students, including, I would hope, the vast majority of future doctors and lawyers, would agree that this notion is just stupid. It is the "intellectuals" who believe this idiocy who I insult. I do so with a clear conscience.

Finally, I wish to point out that...

Kinda ran out of steam there, huh? I hope against hope that you realized what a silly position you were advocating.

Don't take it personally. They are just playing the numbers. Isn't that the responsible thing to do?

If you had gotten through the screening procedure, they would have given you the confidential opt-out option. But you told the truth during the questioning, so you never got to that point.

It is no value judgement against you, personally. I am happy that you continue to enjoy robust good health. But there are some exposures the blood banks would like to keep out of the blood supply, and the only way to determine whether our not a donor might have them is to ask.

Surely they would prefer to refuse donation from a thousand healthy people rather than risk infecting a single person with a deadly disease. Shouldn't this be the case? One just hopes the 999 people understand.

The idea that gay men are more or less prone to contract HIV/AIDS is extremely ignorant. In fact, the fastest growing group of people contracting the disease are African American women 18-25.

Additionally, when weighing the total sum of Americans and the estimated 10% who are gay or lesbian, it's easy to see that straights will clearly have a higher total number of HIV-positive people in the U.S.

Also, because the AIDS crisis originated in the gay community, gay men are more likely to use condoms than straight men. They are also more likely to get regular STD tests.

Lastly, to question whether any specific group should be able to give blood is positively ridiculous. Any Republican should recognize that neither the government nor any instutution should not have the power to dictate who can and can't give blood. After all, any blood donated undegoes rigorous tests which rule out not only HIV but the myriad other diseases, health conditions, and other possibilities that might prevent the blood from being viable.

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.