Jacob Kirsch
English 101
Professor Begert
November 21st,
2015
Gay Blood
Ban
In
1983, a ban took place against men who had sex with men, also known as MSM, to
give blood. To me and a lot of other people, this ban now seems to be
discriminatory because we have the ability to test blood accurately for HIV
when we didn’t in the 80’s. According to GMHC.org (Gay Men’s Health Crisis), a
movement to fight aids, the ban was carried out to, “to help prevent
inadvertent transmission of HIV through blood transfusions. At that time,
HIV/AIDS was largely not understood by doctors, scientists, and the general
public, and the technology and procedures used to test donated blood for HIV
were extremely limited.” The ban is on any man who has had sex with another man
since 1977, even if the man who wants to donate is HIV negative, always
practices safe sex, and even has been in a monogamous relationship for most of
their life. Some transgender woman are also affected by this as the ban is
against birth sex and not gender. This ban is completely outdated, and is a
huge form of discrimination towards these people.
I
believe this ban is a huge form of discrimination to these individuals because
it prohibits them from participating in an activity that helps people and saves
lives. With the incredible advances we have been making in the world of
medicine, donated blood is tested for diseases such as syphilis, HIV,
hepatitis, and HTLV (human T-lymphotropic virus) (mskcc.org). Since this ban
has not been brought to light since 1977, the FDA should consider all of the
advances in the world of medicine persuading them to change the ban.
This ban
also promotes discriminatory stereotypes against MSM. According to GMHC.org, it
insinuates LGBT birth assigned men are at a horrifying risk for sharing the
virus, while saying that that heterosexual people have an extremely low risk of
this. This is not the case provided each party uses the proper precautions.
Arguments could also be made that are homophobic, such as, “it’s bad to be homosexual
so it’s bad for them to donate blood” These stances and views are completely
bias. Medically, lifting this ban would only help people and save lives
Another
way this ban seems to be a clear form of discrimination is that women who have
had sex with a MSM are able to donate blood (GMHC.org) These women are allowed
to donate blood a year after having sexual intercourse with a MSM male, while
men who have been in monogamous relationships since the seventies and have had
an HIV tests that came back negative are not able to donate a drop of blood. Why
should a woman or a straight man who may have had unprotected sexual
intercourse with an array of partners be able to donate blood while these LGBT+
birth assigned males are not?
The
opposition might ask, “If the ban was lifted, what would happen if a MSM donor
lied about their positive HIV status?” This question has an easy answer, HIV
tests would catch it, just as it would if anyone lied about their positive HIV
status. Since clinics and blood drives do HIV testing on donated blood, this is
not a problem.
Prior to
donating blood you are required to fill out a form by the FDA, in which you
have to disclose your birth sex, and if you’re a male, whether or not you’ve
had sex with another man, (FDA forum). So whatever a person’s sex or sexual
orientation, if they don’t disclose that they are HIV positive, they will be
caught. If this ban was lifted there would be no difference in problems that
people who are able to donate blood have now.
Overall,
this discriminatory ban is hurting the mission of blood drives and securing
blood donations, to procure blood for people who need it. GMHC.org states that,
“There is strong opposition to blood drives at many colleges, which only serves
to reduce the blood supply . . . San Jose State University does not allow blood
drives on campus because the ban violates the university’s nondiscrimination
policies.” The fact that some colleges aren’t allowed to host blood drives
because it breaches their nondiscrimination polices show that this is a mammoth
pattern of discrimination. It also negatively affects the whole
mission by rendering blood drives inaccessible to those who are capable of
donating. Another way this interdiction compromises the whole essence of
gathering this live saving element is how many pints they lose by not allowing
LGBT+ birth assigned MSMs to donate. Going back to GMHC.org, “according to one
estimate, the ban prevents over 130,000 gay and bisexual men from donating over
219,000 pints of blood annually. “ A graph from The Huffington Post
created by The Williams Institute at the University of California that studies
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, etc issues confirms this estimate.
This
graph shows the number of men likely to donate that not are not presently able
to do so and the number of pints of blood likely to be donated with three
scenarios .From left to right, if the ban was lifted for LGBT+ birth assigned
men, if there were a twelve month deferral from donating, (they would have to
wait a whole year after having sexual intercourse), and the last scenario shows
the data after a five year deferral from donating. According to The Huffington
Post, the FDA is recommending that the ban be lifted and replaced with the
12-month restriction shown above.
I
believe that by educating more people on this topic, we would be able to
radically increase the amount of blood available to people who need it. There
is mounds of evidence proving that we can safely allow LGBT+ birth assigned men
to donate blood that will help millions of people all around the United States,
so why not do it? Yes, the FDA has made some strides to help, for example, the
one year deferral recommended above, and yes, there have been some attempts to
provide awareness, as demonstrated by The Gay Blood Drive. This movement
focuses on trying to make people aware of this outdated ban and how it focuses
purely on “sexual orientation instead of sexual behavior and personal risk”
(which as I have mentioned before, is a huge gross form of discrimination.) Gay
blood drives are held in various places around the US. At these events, LGBT+
birth assigned males bring an ally to donate for them to show their
willingness. The men who aren’t able to donate write a letter to the FDA. They
and their advocates don nametags, have their picture taken displaying their
name and their letter, this personalized petition is then sent to the FDA. At
their last blood drive, over 1500 eligible allies donated, and over 1500 LGBT+
birth assigned men participated. This organization spreads the word of the ban
that if lifted, could save thousands number of lives.
Overall,
the evidence that I have provided shows that this ban is outdated. Adequate HIV
testing is available to make sure that these men and transgender women are
cleared to donate blood which will save an abundance of lives. Although the FDA
has been making some effort to change this, the change seems to be slow and I
would like to be able to cut through some of the bureaucratic red tape to
expedite this much needed change. We need to pump up awareness of this issue
with more organizations such as the Gay Blood Drive. I hope this paper made you
aware of this problem and how it affects everyone. When this ban is lifted,
many lives will be saved.
Work
Cited
“After
You've Donated Blood.” Memorial Sloan Kettering
Cancer Center. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Web. 27 Nov. 2015.
Food and Drug Administration. Full-Length Donor History Questionnaire. Web.
27 Nov. 2015.
Gay
Men’s Health Crisis MSM Blood Ban FAQ. Gay Men’s Health
Crisis. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.
Terkel,
Amanda. “FDA Recommends Lifting Lifetime Ban On Gay Men Donating Blood.” Huff
Post Politics. Huffington Post, 15 May 2015. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.
Yezak, James. National
Gay Blood Drive. National Gay Blood Drive, Web. 27 Nov. 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment