Today UNC held their annual fall blood drive, and this year everyone will be included. Since 1985, the FDA has enforced a policy, which excludes most gay men from donating blood. Any man who has had sexual relations with another man (MSM) since 1977 is permanently deferred from giving blood. This policy was implemented during the time of an "AIDS Crisis" to prevent recipients form receiving HIV contaminated blood. The FDA has been able to uphold this policy based on the fact that gay and bisexual men are at the highest risk for HIV as a group. Other groups who are at a higher risk for HIV are not upheld to the same standards. For example if a non- MSM individual has sexual relations with a commercial sex worker they are only deferred from donating for a 12 month period. African American women who have a higher rate of HIV as a group are not subject to any kind of deferral.
With many blood drives held at places of employment and schools, this FDA policy has been highly criticized. With the need for blood donation, prospective donors who are not HIV positive are excluded from fighting the cause. There has been significant advancements in testing for HIV since the implementation of this ban in 1985. HIV can be tested for weeks or even days after exposure to the virus. With this in mind only those who have participated in risky behavior during a designated window period should be deferred from donating blood. The FDA has looked into changing their policy in 2000 and 2006. At this point no changes have been made.
Although this ban has not been lifted, several senators are on board. In 2010 Senator Kerry explained that “not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban.” The Obama administration still offers hope in initiating change. Obama’s goal is to “have policies in place that are based in science” rather than “any discriminatory ideas about our community.”
In response to this policy several college campuses including San Jose State and Queens College of New York have ban blood drives on campus all together. Here at UNC we are taking the chance to make our blood drive an educational opportunity. Today students and community members are being asked to “give blood for someone who can’t”. For those who are not permitted to give blood for whatever reason, postcards are available. These postcards have a message in support of changing the current discriminatory laws around blood donation. In my opinion this was a great idea in making a much needed event more inclusive. All students were able to participate in one way or another regardless of their sexual activity and preference.
My partner lived in Panama as a child and is also forbidden from ever giving blood. As you said, there have been so many scientific breakthroughs in blood testing within the last three decades, that it is ridiculous for the FDA to enforce blanket bans for certain people. This is another case where an individual is basically given the choice to be truthful and face irrational discrimination or to lie and serve his country. A report from the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law finds that about 219,000 more pints of blood could be available each year if the FDA lifted the ban. That could save a lot of lives.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the efforts made by UNC to include those who have have faced discrimination for many years. Although post cards aren't the solution, I hope that this will raise awareness and inspire change within our country. The message behind banning those who are "MSM" is strong... "We don't want anything to do with you, even if you can help save lives." Wow!
ReplyDeleteI don't think that getting rid of blood drives on campus all together is the answer. Those who are in need of blood are the ones that pay the ultimate price. These post are frustrating to read (although necessary),as it seems like every time I think we are making progress I'm reminded of the many cruel policies that are still in place. However, it's nice to know that good ol' UNC is striving to inspire change, hopefully other institutions will do the same.
I don't think that banning all blood drives is the answer either because that's punishing those who need blood. It was an actually an undergraduate student a part of a residence hall program that started this movement on campus. I'm proud that students have enough say on our campus to begin this movement and that they are willing to take a chance to do so. I appreciate that our campus is creating awareness for those who are not allowed to give blood for discriminatory reasons.
ReplyDeleteCitation for my comment. I goofed, and didn't quote the citation for my comments about the report from the Williams Institute. Here's the source: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/britain-lifts-ban-on-gay-men-donating-blood-could-the-u-s-be-far-behind/
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting. It seems like another outdated practice that was only implemented because of fear and political pressure, and will probably be defended by the moral majority as they continue to margonalize homosexuals. Good to hear that our students are stepping up to bring attention to this ridiculous regulation.
ReplyDeleteI often wonder why our students always have to be the voice of reason in a crazy, crazy world? Shouldn't those of us who have finished college fixed all of this kind of crap by now?! :)
Great post! And very timely! Recently, the British government lifted the ban on gay men donating blood. The new rule is that MSM (men who have sex with men) must not have been sexually active within a year to be able to donate. While this is still slightly discriminatory, it is a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteAs a gay man myself, I am frustrated by the FDA's ban, almost to the point of hostility. Hopefully soon, our government will see how discriminatory and limiting blanket bans are, and revise the policy.
As far as I know I am banned from donating blood for another eight years (minimum). I have had too many inoculations ranging from multiple typhoid shots to anthrax to small pox (none are pleasant). Also there has been many 'unknown exposures through environmental causes'.
ReplyDeleteI understand I can possibly carry antibodies that may be harmful in a blood transfusion due to the inoculations and possible exposure however I feel I can still help out by providing blood for research purposes (I have tried and was turned away) particularly since I am a universal donor blood type.
This is very frustrating to read as the issue is about providing for people in need. A good heart and a good deed are still good regardless of a persons sexual orientation or life experience.
This is something that I have always been torn about. Having been a donor who is no longer able to donate blood (a relative had what may have been Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease) and having had donated blood impact me personally makes this even more challenging. I support the need to raise concerns and change outdated policies by making a stand and raising a voice, I fear that by eliminating blood drives we will limit an already taxed blood supply. It is a balancing act for me... which ways more... saving a life or changing a backwards policy...???
ReplyDelete