A group of 18 U.S. senators has requested that the Food and Drug Administration change the policy forbidding gay men from donating blood.
The change would not suddenly allow all gay men to donate blood, however. The proposed policy would only allow gay men and other men who have sex with men to donate if they had not had sex with another man for over a year.
The policy was put in place in 1983 when it became clear that blood transfusions were transmitting whatever was causing AIDS. The ban includes any man who has had sex with another man since 1977.
Once donated, all blood is screened for HIV, which is easily detectable after just a few months in the blood.
The FDA last upheld the ban saying gay men have HIV prevalence “60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors, and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”
The American Red Cross and America’s Blood Centers support the change and claim this would bring the policy related to gay men in line with that used for other people with high-risk behaviors relating to blood donation. However, gay men in monogamous relationships would still be excluded.
Among other western countries that ban gay men from donating blood are Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Australia and Japan use the “one-year deferral” policy.
What isn’t clear about the new policy is where they are going to find men who have sex with men who don’t have sex with men.
7 Comments
>What isn’t clear about the new policy is where they are going to find men who have sex with men who don’t have sex with men.
::raises hand::
That’d be me.
I’m a bi man, and I’m currently in a monogamous relationship with a woman. I’ve had boyfriends, but I was 8 years old in 1977, so yeah, having been with a guy since 1977 was pretty unavoidable. Being monogamous I haven’t been with a guy since 1998, I’ve been tested for HIV and can produce the papers to prove that I’m negative, yet I still can’t give blood.
I’m a gay man who hasn’t had sex for over a year. It actually isn’t all that uncommon. I have known lots of gay men who choose not to have sex, either out of fear of contracting HIV or some other STD or because they want to save themselves for that special someone and don’t believe in just hooking up to have sex. The conception that gay men are all promiscuous is a bit of a myth and I’m kind of disappointed that the writer of the story couldn’t resist leaving it out. This would be a very good policy change.
So gay men in commited monogamous relationships with still not be able to give blood?
The policy change would allow a number of people to donate blood who now cannot. Bi men now in a monogamous relationship with women and men who have not had sex with another man for over a year for any reason, as a couple of writers here noted, would be two categories of men that would now be allowed. However, a very safe and very large group that will not be allowed are men in monogamous relationships while promiscuous heterosexual men have always been allowed to donate blood. That hypocrisy is what I meant by the headline.
But aren’t they worried about, you know, getting all that gay blood?
Next thing you know, operating rooms around the country will be churning out nancy boys and bull dykes. Once those little red cells get inside, they work their magic on the rest of you. You’ll find yourself tuning in to TCM instead of Spike. Then you’ll have an uncontrollable urge to buy Barbra Stresiand records and Martha Stewart products. Words like Fabulous, Cocktail, and Low Rise Jeans will become part of your everyday vocabulary. And Neiman’s men’s cosmetics salespeople will soon know you by name.
Who is Deej and why is he using my name?!?! I guess I need to get a more specific name so people don’t make assumptions about my sexual history or think I posted something I didn’t. At least he didn’t make me sound like an idiot.
Whatever the policy on blood, tissue, and organ donations is, it should be made according to the best science available at the time and an understanding of the costs and benefits of having a greater or fewer number of eligible donors.
Also, whatever the policy is, it should be waived for “directed donations,” where the recipient is willing to accept blood, tissue, or organs that would not normally be donate-able.
On a related note, science should look at whether a rule that would deferring people with more than one sex partner in the last year from donating and whether that rule would have unintended side effects that hurt society more than having high-risk blood in the blood supply, such as wholesale encouraging adulterers to lie so they look faithful in front of their spouse.