Geminize Wrote:@MysteryGuest: Thank you. I still disagree with lying in order to be able to give blood, and I especially disagree with blindly suggesting that to an anonymous internet forum. I applaud your desire to help by donating blood, and I hope the system changes to allow us to do that.
You are probably right that it was irresponsible of me to suggest that everyone lie about that question. To clarify my position, I think that lying is perfectly acceptable so long as you are not doing the things that the question was intended to catch (that is to say, having sex with male strangers or otherwise participating in risky sexual behavior). I believe that you still disagree with this position, and I think it's an area we will simply need to agree to disagree on. I see no problem with lying to get around an unfair policy. You seem to have more faith in the system than I do (which is fine). Purely out of curiosity, what exactly do you think would be wrong about me, specifically, lying about my past MSM experiences, given that I'm a healthy adult and that this question is the only thing on the questionnaire that would invalidate my donation?
Geminize Wrote:The ban on MSM donors was an appropriately extreme reaction to the threat of HIV to the blood supply 30 years ago.
...
I don't believe the MSM donor ban was motivated by prejudice.
I completely agree with this, actually. I believe that this policy was initially created as an extreme measure to combat an extreme threat. If I were in the FDA's shoes at the time I would have probably supported that decision. The problem is that we no longer live in that time period. Things are different now, and the problem is far less severe. Given this, the severeness of their policy no longer fits, and is most certainly an example of prejudice, prejudice that was originally created with good intentions, but prejudice all the same. I don't blame the FDA for the policy exactly, I blame them for taking too long to amend it. This is what I hope to facilitate.
Actually, I find the rate at which we make changes, particularly with regards to our government, to be a major problem. How long did it take us to end the blatantly discriminatory Don't Ask Don't Tell policy? How much longer will it take before gay marriage is legalized? Our system moves far too slowly, and the way I see it it's up to us to stimulate change. This blood donor policy is one example of an outdated relic of an earlier age that we need to put to rest, and fast.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
Sorry about the thread necromancy, but I wanted to post that there is now an organization dedicated to revising this outdated and discriminatory policy. It's called Banned 4 Life. I'd post a link to their page but I do not have enough posts yet to do so, so you'll have to google it yourself.
I urge my fellow GLBT brothers/sisters to check this out and sign up for their email updates on the campaign to get this policy changed. If you can donate any money that would also be greatly appreciated.
The GLBT community has taken many big steps towards equality recently, but we are far from finished. We must stand strong against discriminatory policies like these if we want to succeed. Each time we score a victory in human rights we come closer to our goal of total equality for the GLBT community. I believe that this goal is on the horizon. Changing discriminatory policies like the FDA policy towards gay male blood donors will help change peoples' minds about GLBT people and, in turn, will make the progressive changes we all seek easier to obtain. You can help bring this about. I urge you to take action.
•
Apparently you didn't live through the 1980's and were not personally traumatized by the AIDS epidemic - it wasn't merely a scare, many people died slow, debilitating, horrifying deaths.
The most large scale case of infections among children resulting from contaminated injections and unscreened blood transfusion occurred in Romania between 1987 to 1991 when more than 10,000 babies and children were infected with HIV as a result of unsafe medical practices.9
http://www.avert.org/children.htm
It wasn't just a scare, it was a real deal situation that played out and real reasons were in play for these rules to be put in place.
I went through the 80's, I watched many people slip away... No, I watched them waste away, lose eyeballs, break out in horrible sores, dwindle, weaken and finally (which for many was a real mercy by the time it came) die and escape the horror of the disease.
My own brother was a statistic, he ended up losing both eye balls and his mind before it was over. It was a gut wrenching horror.
Yeah sure, today people don't have to die from it, so many treatments, so many options - no real cure, but hey the 'emergency is over'... Right?
Face the facts that gay men are more sexually active and do partake of high risk activities and are indeed, in the USA, the largest population that has the HIV in it. Like it or not there are more gays with HIV than straights - percentage wise. 1/5th ofthe gay population are infected, only 1/100th of the straight population is. Its this statistic that counts, not the numbers of infected, but the percentage of infected.
Yeah sure, they could test the blood... They do that any way.... but why take unnecessary risks?
Until there is a cure we have to deal with the virus in some measure, if that means blocking the high risk population from donation, then so be it.
•
I was born in the 1980's, so you are correct that I didn't exactly live through the AIDs scare, but this is just my point: we are not living in the 1980s anymore. You yourself point this out.
I'm sorry about your brother, I really am, but this is simply not relevant to this issue as times are different and for the most part people (who don't live in third world countries) are not suffering as he did. Besides that, the amount of people suffering from AIDS/HIV has dramatically reduced since the time this FDA ban on gay male blood donors was put into effect.
As far as "blocking the high risk population from donation," which would you rather receive blood from, someone who had sex with an AIDS infested prostitute a year ago, or a man who had sex with a man 20 years ago and remained celibate since? Because this policy has you taking the AIDS hooker blood. The point is that way more risky things are allowed so long as you're straight. You think that's fair? Because I certainly don't.
Look, I know your experiences may make you adverse to the policy change because you don't want anyone to suffer as your brother did, but please do not let fear stand in the way of progress. The fact is that the blood supply in America is one of the most stringently tested supplies in the world, and other major countries are not far off. I tried to find news reports of people who got AIDs from tainted blood transfusions and could find exactly one: a girl in Saudi Arabia. There was also an article about people getting HIV and hepatitis C from tainted blood transfusions in Canada, but this was linked to private blood-plasma clinics with far less stringent sanitation policies. I found absolutely nothing about similar cases in the USA.
Show me evidence that receiving diseases from tainted blood transfusions is still a significant danger in major countries. Until you do I can say with confidence that the policy as it stands now is unfairly discriminatory towards gay men. Worse, it isn't the gay men who suffer from this, but the people who are in need of blood transfusions. As terrible as it was to watch your brother die of AIDs, how do you think it would be for a mother to watch her daughter die because there wasn't enough blood of her blood type for the transfusion she needed? I searched for news reports on "blood shortage" and found several articles as well as pleas from blood banks to donate in order to limit shortages. In today's world, shortage of available blood is a far greater danger than receiving AIDs infested blood in a transfusion, especially given the previously mentioned regulations towards testing the blood supply. Giving gay men the ability to donate will increase the blood supply at the same time it removes a discriminatory policy.
I should also mention (as I have before in this thread) that I completely believe that the FDA had every right to introduce the policy at the time they did so. The danger was great back then, and their extreme response was warranted. Now, however, times have changed and it is no longer an extreme response to an extreme problem but an extreme response to a controlled and comparatively minor danger. It is policies like these that perpetuate homophobia. Just look at this thread, just look at yourself, Bowyn. I mean no offence, but you and many others on this thread have listed harmful stereotypes of gay men as fact in order to support this policy. I have many GLBT friends and very few of them conform to any of those stereotypes. None conform to all of them. At the same time, I have some very promiscuous straight friends.
If you look at other parts of the world, their blood supply regulations have far less stringent policies towards gay men (given that they are not banned from donating blood for their whole lives) and they haven't had any significant increase in disease transfer through blood transfusion. How, exactly, do you explain that? How can you defend this policy when the facts stare you right in the face?
•
A misconception that AIDS is a "gay" disease.
I read back in the 80's....some "undercover" agent for some big newspaper back then....did a very long stint on finding out exactly where this disease came from.
His findings found that businessmen who traveled between the USA and Africa, were paying for hookers over in Africa that had this disease. Where THEY got it, nobody knows. But this newspaper guy said that he found that AIDS was actually contracted and spread by "bisexuals". They would have sex with female hookers over in Africa and then brought it back here, spreading it when they bought sex over here or spread it to their wives, husbands, boyfriends, girlfriends.
The reason it was discovered in San Francisco first, is because (supposedly) that was the largest majority of "bisexuals" in the USA, and most of those men had jobs that took them overseas a lot.
Many, many, many people died of AIDS before the discovery of it. Nobody knew what it was.
It was coincidence that someone discovered what it was, when a lot of men in San Fran started getting the same symptoms and dying from them.
So, if this newspaper mans findings are to be believed, the correct term should be "its a bisexual disease".
My opinion is..... who fucking CARES!!!!!! Find a goddamn cure! Stop pointing fingers and DO something to stop it!!!
•
cuntpunch all discriminatory policy! Discrimination is against the international bill of human rights!
•
Geminize Wrote: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."
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.
First no insults were made, the argument was made that gay people are more promiscuous than straights, his reply was "if you (i.e those the argument was referring) are then don't class me in the same group.
You make some good points but the feigned hurt feelings were a bit uncalled for.
Also I find it a little...no a lot shocking that you would suggest boycotting of blood banks in preference to lying!
On a wider note...are blood banks only as safe as the trustworthiness of the donor?
•
Clearly you have no idea of the profound psychological impact on a person when their test comes back as "Positive". Yeah sure postive people have the potential to live out a long, remarkably high quality of life, but the impact of the positive result has an impact.
They are reminded twice a day that they are positive. They take a cocktail of medications which must be taken every day twice a day for the rest of their lives.
They are reminded they are HIV pos each time they see a doctor - every 1-3 months. They are reminded that they are HIV pos when they go to apply for insurance and have to admit they have a preexisting condition.
If they lose insurance (in the USA) its akin to being told you are going to be hung come sun-up. While there are a decent chunk of support and drug resources, to the person who has been dumped from their Insurance its a scary situation.
Then there are the side effects of the drugs used. Diarrhea to the point were many have 'accidents' in public - in their car, wherever. Its embarassing and each time it reminds them that they face an uncertain future.
Yes there are a plethora of cocktail options, but many patients end up becoming resistant to one cocktail after another. Some actually do become resistant to all cocktails - and time is up.
Forget a mixed relationship (One pos the other neg). The pos person ends up worried that they will infect the person they love, the neg person can't handle the daily minor issues of the HIV patient - lots of other interesting things take place.
So yeah no one is really suffering a slow debilitating death, instead they are suffering the ups and downs of being a patient for the rest of their life.
We won't even talk about the depression that a majority of patients get from most cocktails which cause depression.
Clearly you do not understand what living with a life long, incurable infection is all about or you wouldn't be so quick to say 'oh its treatable'.
It is sort of a slap in the face of those who deal with the issues of being positive from day to day.
MysteryGuest Wrote:I was born in the 1980's, so you are correct that I didn't exactly live through the AIDs scare, but this is just my point: we are not living in the 1980s anymore. You yourself point this out.
I'm sorry about your brother, I really am, but this is simply not relevant to this issue as times are different and for the most part people (who don't live in third world countries) are not suffering as he did. Besides that, the amount of people suffering from AIDS/HIV has dramatically reduced since the time this FDA ban on gay male blood donors was put into effect.
•
@Bowyn: given that my point is that not only is AIDs significantly less widespread now but donor blood is subject to far greater scrutiny than the time this policy was put into effect, I'm curious what you are trying to prove with your post? Yes, AIDs still sucks for those who have it. I can see that even though they may not be slowly dying a horrible death as they once were there are still many problems that come with the disease, and I sympathize.
But this thread isn't about AIDs, it's about a discriminatory policy for blood donation. Talking about how bad AIDs is really doesn't say anything about its dangers relative to blood donation, or the necessity of a ban on gay male donors.
Actually, I have a question for you Bowyn. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, a straight man (or woman) can have heterosexual sex with someone who they know has AIDs and in one year be eligible to donate blood again. Do you agree that under the current regulations this should be changed so that anyone who has sex with someone who definitely has AIDs is banned from blood donation for life, just like any man who has sex with another man? If so then we are at least on the same page in terms of fairness, and it is evident that you simply don't want to take any risks with AIDs (which given your experiences is perfectly understandable). If not, why do you think it's okay to give a lifetime ban to someone who has sex with someone who might have AIDs and not do the same thing for someone who has sex with someone who definitely has AIDs?
•
I would not have a problem lying on the form to give blood or to tell other people to lie if they are in a completely monogamous relationship like I am. That policy went the way of the dinosaur and it needs to be changed.
•
|
Trying to combat a discriminatory policy, unsure where to go from here
