Trying to combat a discriminatory policy, unsure where to go from here

[Lalo]

Whoa! Lots of misconceptions here. First of all, I am a nurse and I completely agree with MysteryGuest. The policy is discriminatory and was put into place in 1985. At the time, the primary fear, and a logical one was AIDS. Testing for the AIDS virus was not a very routine procedure and there was tremendous fear in this country at the time, for good reason. However, today, that ban and especially the way that the regulations are written are simply discriminatory. There is a great article here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=11...WCWuK_nZ14

An excerpt: "Under the current rule, a heterosexual woman who has had sex with numerous AIDS-infected partners can give blood after waiting a year, but a gay man who’s been celibate since 1978 is banned. Gay activists say that’s discrimination.

“The existing policy is archaic and discriminatory because it falsely assumes that all gay men are HIV-positive regardless of their sexual behavior. At the same time, it allows heterosexuals to donate blood even if they have participated in risky sexual or drug-use behavior,” says Martin Algaze, spokesman for Gay Men’s Health Crisis.

Clearly, this regulation is archaic, discriminatory, and prevents many healthy, potential donors (like myself and MysteryGuest) from donating to the blood supply. As far as the "science behind the decision", quite frankly there is none, and suggesting otherwise really smacks of internalized homophobia.
Here's another article on the current debate:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/health/gay-men-blood-ban

Having said all of that, my recommendation is to NOT LIE during the screening process. There are other ways to get involved and to protest the discriminatory position of the nation's blood banks. Look on-line for gay organizations working for this cause and get involved.

As for some of the other comments here, gay men may be at higher risk for AIDS and Hepatitis, but the blood supply in the U.S. is one of the most stringently tested medical supplies in the world. Generalizations about who gay people are, and how "unsafe" they are simply because they are gay is extremely prejudicial and filled with self-loathing at a certain level. Regulations sometimes made sense for a particular period of time. But just because they exist, does not mean that they should not be challenged. Discrimination has been legalized many times before throughout the history of the world. This is just one more case of it that needs to end.

[Geminize]

Mystery, thanks for your considered response. I would appreciate, however, that you not speculate about the sexual behavior of myself or my friends. I hope we can have a discussion about a serious issue. I'm not here to trade insults.

Does the FDA's policy contribute to misunderstandings and discrimination towards the LGBT community?

Yes, I don't challenge that.

Should their lifetime policy against MSM donors (Men who have Sex with Men) be changed?

Yes, in my opinion, and based on the growing body of evidence in favor of such a change.

One of the tricky points for the FDA is that they are not only dealing with the actual risks of any disease in donated blood, but also the public's perception of risk. Unfortunately, the American public is largely scientifically illiterate. The FDA is considering changes to its policy, and that could certainly contribute to a change in public attitudes. Change comes slowly when fear is involved.

In your original post you asked what you can do, other than write the FDA and other officials. In my opinion, the best you can do is the opposite of what you suggest. Instead of lying in order to be able to donate blood, you can organize boycotts of blood drives in order to bring attention to this issue. This has been done on several college campuses and raises awareness of the issue in those communities. That would be a way to "champion an issue."

and I urge all of you to lie about that question as well if you go to give blood.

This is the statement you made that caused the strongest reaction in me. In my opinion, it is irresponsible to suggest that in a forum like this where you have no idea who is reading it. Different people have different understandings and beliefs about the risks of HIV and other STD's. When it comes to a broad range of people, never rely on common sense.

[HomeagainNYC]

Here's a link for people who feel as you do, BUT, they are behaving responsibly about it and, are working in a more constructive/adult way of changing the system, rather than - whining/lying - which changes nothing.

I was just wondering since this is the first time I've actually tried to champion an issue, what else can I do about this?

Organize a chapter in NO.

http://www.thelantern.com/campus/some-pr...WCh31e8KSo

Grow up.

[Pix]

Good luck, Mystery Guest, and glad to see you're doing ok for the most part. mile:

One day the Singularity will come and people will look back and wonder why we were so insane (just as we do previous generations) and grateful to live in a hopefully more civilized era.

[Undreamt]

excuse the language but

It is absolutely discriminatory and bullshit and I can't fucking stand people who try and makeup excuses for the hegemonic normalization of these sort of prejudices. You have a right to be offended and you should be.
If other people went so scared and actually stood up for issues instead of going "oh but its not really affecting me at the moment and I don't want to be insulted to so I'm going to pretend its okay..." then maybe society would have changed by now to cut out these insulting, offensive and discriminatory behaviors.

I boycott the charities that organize blood donations, I refuse to be an organ donor (ironic that they want my organs but not my blood) and I stand up for the issue. I've had arguments with Red Cross volunteers on the street about it.

Things don't change if people keep sweeping the issue under the carpet.

[OrphanPip]

It is a matter of health policy that should be determined by health professionals and should not be political. There remains a status quo decision that holds the current policies to be the safest and any debate on the topic should not be through protest, or complaints to the charities.

[Undreamt]

It is a matter of health policy that should be determined by health professionals and should not be political. There remains a status quo decision that holds the current policies to be the safest and any debate on the topic should not be through protest, or complaints to the charities.

The current policies are not the safest, if they wanted safe then the question should ask how many sexual partners and how often.

If you really believe that the current policies are the safest please explain how man who has sex with a different woman every weekend is less likely to have an STI than someone who has been in a monogamous gay relationship for the past 6 years?

[Lilitu]

It is a matter of health policy that should be determined by health professionals and should not be political...

Exactly. Ordinary people off the street can't exactly know what they're talking about when it comes to health and medical science. The best option is to be cautious and if necessary to err on caution.

Not everything is appropriate for the political platform.

[OrphanPip]

The current policies are not the safest, if they wanted safe then the question should ask how many sexual partners and how often.

If you really believe that the current policies are the safest please explain how man who has sex with a different woman every weekend is less likely to have an STI than someone who has been in a monogamous gay relationship for the past 6 years?

They do ask questions about men having sex with women. They are working with a complex issue, they can't have broad sweeping exclusions of straight people because then they would have no donors at all. The balance of acceptable risk with the restrictions of cost and the supply needs is a decision to be made by health professionals. The sad fact is that a gay man who believes himself to be in a monogamous relationship of 6 years may still be more likely to contract HIV from an unfaithful partner than is a promiscuous straight person, depending on the demographics. It is a safer decision to exclude all MSM, even if they present less of a risk than certain straight people who might not be screened out, because it is less costly to design exclusion criteria to catch those straight people and the risk for a promiscuous straight person is still lower than for gay people.

There is a misconception that only promiscuous gay people contract HIV, there are plenty of people who only get involved in monogamous relationships and still contract the virus. This is the reality of dealing with a virus that is already widely present in the community.

[Undreamt]

Exactly. Ordinary people off the street can't exactly know what they're talking about when it comes to health and medical science. The best option is to be cautious and if necessary to err on caution.

Not everything is appropriate for the political platform.

You want to err on caution?
Okay how about we say that everyone has to be either celibate or in a monogamous long term relationship to donate blood.

We aren't talking about ordinary people off the street we are talking about intelligent people who have considered the issue and formed an opinion based on research and facts.

My partner has been accused of drug seeking by doctors because they have this stupid opinion that only 'medical professionals' are allowed to know things about drugs and medical issues. They get pissed off because he better understands the chemical names and side effects of drugs than they do because he works with medical database software.