So I was discriminated against for the first time in my life a few days ago.
I went to the local Bloodmobile to give blood. During the preliminary questions, I was asked this question: "Male donors: had sexual contact with another male [since 1977], even once? (Females: check “I am female.”  " (copied from a scan of the questionnaire in question. You can find this questionnaire online by searching for "blood donor questions" or something like that, I can't post a link here as my post count is too low). I answered yes. I was informed that this made me ineligible to give blood. I asked when the earliest I could give blood again would be, and the nurse told me never.
I find this to be extremely offensive, as it seems to imply that even after one sexual encounter between two men the blood of both men is tainted, and unfit for use in transfusion. I may not be a doctor, but I know enough about health and biology to know that this is simply not true.
I give the FDA the benefit of the doubt and assume that this question was developed in response to the AIDS scare in the 1980s, but it seems to have never been reevaluated after said scare subsided. I can say with full confidence that I do not have AIDS (or any other STD), and in fact this is addressed by some of the other questions in the preliminary evaluation, so I am confused as to why my sexual activities are of any concern with regard to giving blood.
So I've written the Human Rights Campaign as well as my state officials and the FDA. 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? What would you do in my situation?
I'll say that I do plan on going to give blood again. When I am asked if I have had sexual contact with another male, I will lie and say I have not. I am going to do this because I believe that if my blood can save someone's life then that is far more important than my sexual preferences, and I urge all of you to lie about that question as well if you go to give blood (assuming you're not participating in risky sex acts). It is kind of sad that I need to lie about myself in order to potentially save someone's life.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
i dont think this is new.
gay men are not allowed to donate blood as far as i know.
and dont feel discriminated - i am sure there is a valid reason behind it.
i am gay and i wouldnt feel too comfortable receiving any blood from another gay, regardless how much he claims to be free of any STDs.
call me narrow minded or whatever but we all know how promiscuous the gay world is. straight men dont have "open relationships" (or is not as common) and what not; and they protect themselves less since they dont have to worry about becoming pregnant.
the gay world is as dirty as the NY sewers; congrats on being STD free and all but you are an exception. dont take it personally.
•
This is standard blood collection policy, roughly 50% of people with HIV in the USA are gay men, and 10-30% (depending on the study) of gay men are HIV+.
The blood collection agencies do a screening processes intended to limit the risk of their supply, and it is not just MSM (who do not all identify as gay or bi) who are excluded.
•
I see where your opinions are coming from, but I still find this to be completely unacceptable. If there was a significant percentage of black people with AIDS (and actually there is, isn't there? Africa has a big AIDS problem) do you think they would say "black people can't donate blood?" Of course not, that would be racist.
The "reasons" you cite for this policy are nothing more than stereotypes. I have a fair amount of gay friends, and honestly it's my straight friends who are more promiscuous. If we're going to start using stereotypes to determine who can do what then why not just stop issuing drivers licences to Asians and women, or forbid Middle Easterners from flying on planes?
If you think the issue is whether someone is overly promiscuous, or by virtue of that whether they have STDs (and that these traits are being stereotypically attributed to gay men), then I should point out to you that there already are questions on the questionnaire that ask that (for example "In the past 12 months have you had sexual contact with a prostitute or anyone else who takes money or drugs or other payment for sex?" and "in the past 12 months have you had sexual contact with anyone who has HIV/AIDS or has had a positive test for the HIV/AIDS virus?"). I would like to point out as well that you are able to give blood after having sexual contact with someone who definitely has AIDS/HIV so long as it was 12 months ago or more, but even a single sexual contact with another man, HIV+ or not, from 1977 on makes you ineligible. Still think this is fair?
Frankly, I'm kind of surprised and disappointed by how accepting you guys are of this.
•
PLEASE DO NOT LIE
on the blood donation questionnaire!
You have not been discriminated against. You may be perfectly healthy, and your blood fine for transfusion. And you may not be.
The FDA, Red Cross, CDC, etc must develop criteria to protect the recipients of donated blood. The recipients are vulnerable and cannot make the judgement call themselves. These agencies err on the side of caution in order to protect the blood supply, the vulnerable recipients, and their own legal asses.
They are not saying that YOUR blood is tainted because you had man on man sex once. They are simply doing what is necessary in order to reduce the risk factor when dealing with millions of pints of blood.
HIV is only one consideration. Hepatitis is also an issue, and people can carry that infection for years without ever showing or feeling any symptoms.
I have given gallons of blood over the years, and I was fully aware when I first had sex with another man that I would never donate again. That was my choice.
It's true that different countries have different criteria. That doesn't make any of them right or wrong. They have simply weighed the evidence and risks and come up with different decisions. Someday the criteria in the US may change, but lying so that you can donate will not bring that day any sooner.
PLEASE DO NOT LIE
on the blood donation questionnaire!
•
•
Sorry Geminize, my mind is made up. Maybe you and your friends conform more to gay stereotypes, but I'm not a hyperpromiscuous sex fiend who takes it bareback up the butt every Thursday. I do not have sex often, and when I do I use protection. I am certainly less likely to have AIDS (or hepatitis, or any other nasty STD) than even my straight friends are! I find it offensive that I'm being grouped into that category even when I know that I am clean and have answered questions that directly reflect that. Do you think it would be acceptable for them to refuse my blood if I were to get tested and confirmed to be STD free? Because according to this questionnaire they would.
I should make it clear that I am obviously not advocating people to go give blood if they think they may be at risk for HIV/AIDS (like, for example, you actually are promiscuous and regularly have sex with strangers). This should be common sense. I am merely trying to express my disgust that even a single sexual encounter between two men essentially makes both of them ineligible for blood donation for life. Does no one else see this as a bit extreme? I mean, you could go dip your bare dick in a cracked out AIDS infested hooker while sticking an unclean heroine needle in your arm and as long as you did it more than a year ago they'll take your blood no questions, but if you get a blowjob from your boyfriend, even if it was when you were just a kid, even if you were wearing protection, nope your blood's tainted, we wouldn't want to potentially infect our patients now would we?
Can you honestly with a straight face say that that is fair? Or that, with that said, this "no gay men" policy for blood donations is purely to protect people from the threat of AIDS or other similar diseases? If so, how come having sex with someone who definitely has AIDS only makes you ineligible for blood donations for a year, whereas having sex with a gay man (someone who is, just for the purposes of argument, 50% likely to have AIDS) makes you ineligible for the rest of your life?
•
I remember working in a hospital in the 1960's and one guy went ballistic because there was no test for if the blood came from a black person. He was willing to die rather than have 'tainted' blood. These ideals still exists and NEVER will go away. So maybe they hold onto that policy for the peace of mind for all the bigots thay have to deal with. I sort of side with them on that but do not agree with it. The thought of dying of the 'gay plague' has to be terrifying to these ignorant people.
•
Last year I gave blood and they asked about sexual contact and were quite specific about it giving 5 years after anal intercourse of what I have to assume is a cautionary period. Women who have ha sex with a man who has had sex with a man must wait 1 year as do men who have had sex with a woman who has had sex with a man who has had sex with a man.
They test for diseases, and ask that you do not give blood as a replacement to getting an HIV test.
Honestly, I don't want this to become a huge issue, this is completely the wrong platform for gay rights debates. You shouldn't be antagonising the blood donation system, it's just not right. Besides, Aeneas is right, the gay community has an incredibly high risk for HIV, and some blood donations do prohibit people who have had sexual contact with people from some African countries due to the high risk factor.
The problem can be addressed through another medium. The blood donation banks are not the right thing to be targeting.
•
@Jim: If someone would rather die than take "tainted" homosexual blood (assuming that said blood is tested and clean) I say let them. It's their choice (even if they're making a stupid one) and as a bonus that's one less homophobic bigot out there.
@Lilitu: Actually, I'm more going after the FDA rather than the blood banks. The nurse who gave me my questionnaire made it pretty clear that she didn't judge, but that her hands were tied on the issue since it was an official FDA policy.
If the problem can be addressed through another medium, please, tell me what that is. Regardless of the defenses made for this policy I still think that it is discriminatory and wrong in its current state, and would like to pursue all avenues of protest. If you have a suggestion as to where I can take this complaint I am eager to hear it.
•
|
