The Gay Blood Ban: Is It Really Necessary?

The Gay Blood Ban: Is it Really Necessary?

Introduction

For this paper, I attended a Lunch-n-Learn seminar entitled "Be Negative: A Program on HIV/AIDS" held at KSU on February 3, 2004. During the presentation, the speaker revealed that, as a gay man, he is forever prohibited from donating blood. As such, I have chosen to develop a plan of action that will assist in lifting the gay blood ban.

After some research, I learned that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the organization responsible for making the laws that prohibit gay men from donating blood. In fact, the law states that any man who has had sex with another man since 1977, even once, is banned from giving blood. Ironically, a heterosexual man can have unprotected anal sex with a female prostitute, and then donate blood twelve months later. However, a gay man in a monogamous relationship who practices safe sex is forever banned from donating his blood.

The FDA's policy first originated in the mid-1980s, when the HIV and AIDS viruses were still new and testing methods could not be relied upon. During this period, tens of thousands of people became infected with HIV as a result of contaminated blood transfusions, and so it was reasonable for gay men to be excluded from blood donation. However, due to major advancements in HIV testing in the past twenty years, there is now very little risk of HIV-infected blood getting into the nation's blood supply. We have much more advanced methods of testing that can detect the presence of HIV or AIDS early on, and HIV infection from blood donations today are extremely rare. In fact, blood is checked and rechecked for HIV three (3) times. Therefore, there is no longer a valid reason for excluding gay men from blood donation. This debate has become so controversial, that many universities now prohibit the Red Cross from organizing blood drives on their campuses due to discrimination issues.

Plan of Action

According to the FDA's website, any individual or consumer group can legally petition the FDA's policies and/or participate in the rule-making process by submitting written comments on proposed rules and policies. The FDA alleges that they carefully review and consider public input before making a final decision on a rule. Therefore, petitioning the FDA, and providing them with supporting evidence of why gay men should be allowed to donate blood, would be a good start in getting the ban lifted.

Moreover, the petition should include a proposal suggesting that the FDA change its policy to exclude both homosexuals and heterosexuals who have had unprotected sex with someone other than a spouse or long-term partner in the past 12 months. The Red Cross is required by the FDA to give prospective donors a questionnaire asking them a multitude of personal questions, such as whether the individual has engaged in prostitution, whether the individual is an IV drug user, and, if the individual is a man, whether he has had sex with another man since 1977. However, the Red Cross should be allowed to modify the language in some of these questions so that gay men are not primarily discriminated against. For example, instead of asking whether a man has had sex with another man since 1977, the questionnaire should ask whether he has had unprotected sex within the last 12 months with someone other than a spouse or long-term partner. Additionally, it should ask whether there is a chance that the prospective donor's partner may have engaged in unprotected sex outside of the relationship. Surprisingly, the questionnaire does not ask any questions regarding unprotected sex.

In addition to petitioning the FDA, I believe that a major gay rights organization, such as the Human Rights Campaign, should come together to lobby the FDA in order to persuade them to change their policy with regard to the gay blood ban. (Lobbying is any attempt by a group or individual to influence the decisions of government.)

Why This Policy is Needed

A change in the FDA's current policy is needed because there are frequent blood shortages in the United States, and the increased blood supply would save more lives. In fact, according to the FDA's own scientists, if the rules were changed to permit gay men to donate blood, it could increase the blood supply by over 140,000 units annually. (Datz-Greenberg & Stewart-Winter, 2000). The FDA's current policy is unnecessarily exacerbating the nation's blood shortages.

Furthermore, this course of action is needed because the FDA's current policy is clearly discriminatory. Homosexuality is being put in the same category as prostitution and IV drug use. Many heterosexuals engage in risky behavior, however, no attempt is made to weed them out. Also, gay rights groups have protested that the gay blood ban differs from bans placed on other high-risk donors, such as men who engage in sexual activity with prostitutes. (Richwine, 2000). Blood banks have urged the FDA to enforce a one (1) year gay ban instead of the current lifetime ban, so that