Opinion: Gay Men Should Be Able to Donate Blood

By Broadside Correspondent Sabra Hayes

Federal policy has banned gay men from giving blood since the 1970s in order to prevent the spread of HIV. This policy is outdated, discriminatory and needs to be abolished. Under current FDA regulations, blood donation services cannot accept any male donor who admits to having had sexual relations with another man after 1977. This policy holds more homophobic prejudices than medical facts. The unjustified mass exclusion of gay donors, regardless of their sexual histories is a violation of human rights that is apparently accepted by our government.

As with the ban on ex-sex workers and ex-injecting drug users, the policy of excluding every gay donor is based on generalizations. This policy is lumping together all gay men as if they were the same and all had HIV/AIDS. There is a wide diversity of gay sexual behaviors and lifestyles, which leads some men to be at high risk for HIV and others to have no risk at all. If men in the later category test HIV-negative, their blood should be accepted regardless of their sexual preference.

HIV is the virus that causes AIDS. It can be transmitted through blood transfusion so all donor programs are required to question donors about possible HIV exposure and test donated blood for this virus. Putting into consideration that all the blood is tested for HIV/AIDS after it is received, this senseless blockade of blood from gay donors needs to be stopped.

The FDA’s Web site states that the “FDA’s deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation. Male to male sex has been associated with an increased risk of HIV infection at least since 1977. Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate, have an HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA. Male to male sex continues to account for the largest number of people newly infected with HIV. Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion.”

The FDA is basically stating that they are not deferring men from giving blood because of their sexual orientation, but because they have sex with men. This is a huge contradiction, because sexual orientation is determined by whom we have sex with. Therefore male-to-male sex is considered gay and a sexual orientation. However, the blood used by heterosexual individuals is acceptable if they fit to the standards of the FDA.

The FDA guidelines for accepting blood donations requires that before giving blood, a person must register, have their vital signs checked and a medical history taken, and under go a blood test. The blood donation center will also have a questionnaire, asking about certain behaviors or travel which may have increased the risk for certain diseases. All of these layers of security and even a blood test before the blood is actually drawn should be sufficient enough to catch any disease which could be transmitted through the blood, without turning away an individual because of their sexual preference. Ryland Dodge, a spokesman for the Red Cross stated that, “All these things come together to make us much more confident that our layers of safety have improved to the point where they should review the policy.”

This policy limiting the donation of blood by gay men was created in an age of misunderstanding, when there was no reliable HIV/AIDS testing. Now all blood is tested, and HIV-positive status is no longer a symbol socially reserved for gay and bisexual men. The donation of blood is in constant need in this country. With all the advancements in medical technology and the blood being screened as meticulously as it is, there is absolutely no reason why people who have a homosexual orientation should be denied the chance to give that life-giving resource.