But we might catch teh ghey!

Marcus Leung has stuff to say about gay male blood donation.

I applaud Jeff Manassero's efforts to overturn the Food & Drug Administration's ban on gay men.

Whoa... I don't think I remember that ban.

Anyway, Leung argues that, instead of following the FDA's instructions while complaining, gay males need to not submit. Presumably, this means either lying and giving blood anyway, or going in to actively get rejected when answering the questions they start donations with.

Blood drives are the new lunch counters. By saying that I cannot, as a gay male, donate blood, the FDA says that I am not of equal quality as another human being.

Just think of all the things car insurance rates say under this standard.

We should not fool ourselves by supposing that the FDA cares about the shortage of blood that plagues American healthcare. I realize this is a bold statement and a harsh indictment of the FDA, but that is the truth. I say this because if the FDA did truly care about the shortage, the ban would have been repealed a long time ago. What the FDA does care about is upholding discrimination against gay man all across the country.

I think there's a middle ground here. I think it's possible the FDA weighed some concerns and determining that the ban is worth the danger of blood shortfall. The fact that they could get more blood by accepting gay men does not, by itself, prove that they don't care about blood shortages. I also find the idea that the FDA folks get together and, when making their decisions, actually make decisions for the purpose of discriminating against gay men to be somewhat unlikely. "Not caring about discrimination" is not the same as "trying to perpetuate discrimination."

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 5/07/2007 04:23:00 PM #
Comments (10)

. . .

Comments:

man, that op-ed is gay.

# posted by  Anonymous : 5:51 PM, May 07, 2007

 

I know you know the arguments, Beetle, but I'll go spell them out.

The reason for prohibiting gay men from donating blood is that they are at higher risk for having blood-borne pathogens such as HIV/AIDS. This was a really big deal before there was a reasonable test for HIV and the blood supply was significantly contaminated with HIV-infected donations. Various high-profile cases from blood transfusions led to the prohibition on donations from high-risk individuals.

The thing is, now there are reliable tests for detecting HIV and other pathogens in blood donations, but there is a 3 month window period until there is a 99% confidence against a false negative result, that is, 3 months after infection, 99% of the infected will test positive.

It would perhaps be better to amend the question, which, if I recall correctly was "Have you had anal sex with a male?" or something to that effect and change it to something like "Have you had anal sex with a male in the last six months?", when a false negative result is so rare as to be non-existant with modern tests.

# posted by  J Koo : 5:52 PM, May 07, 2007

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm inclined to agree with Jeff and co. on this. I didn't mean to say anything more than I did, which is that the rhetoric used in this letter is ridiculous.

(By the way, I'm not sure 1% false negatives is good enough)

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 5:55 PM, May 07, 2007

 

when you're talking about something like HIV, 1% is super high and terrible. Why not cover what the professor wrote? He's right.

# posted by  Anonymous : 7:44 AM, May 08, 2007

 

There is a genuine risk to donating blood, but there is a risk from blood from any source. I think the main question is why homosexual activity has a blanket ban, when heterosexual sexual activity is allowed the luxury of the modifier "with someone who may have HIV/AIDS".

# posted by  J Koo : 7:49 AM, May 08, 2007

 

I didn't cover what the professor wrote because I assume folks are literate.

But as he said, it's an issue of risks and such. The risk is higher and the numbers are lower when it comes to gay men. The blood donation system couldn't survive a blanket ban on straights who screw, but it can survive one on gays.

When you use words like "luxury" it seems like you're looking at it from the point of view of the donors, but the folks who make these decisions have a different set of goals and obligations.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 9:47 AM, May 08, 2007

 

The risks are also way higher with African-American women than the general population, but yet we still allow them to donate.

# posted by  CaliforniaGrown : 6:30 PM, May 08, 2007

 

"The risks are also way higher with African-American women than the general population, but yet we still allow them to donate."

Nice try. It's not as high as the risk for gay men.

# posted by  Anonymous : 9:07 PM, May 08, 2007

 

"Not as high" still allows that it's high. Is it just convenient that whatever threshold you're using is below the gay male rate but above the female Af-Am rate?

What is your threshold, and why?

# posted by  Anonymous : 10:43 AM, May 09, 2007

 

it makes sense. the gay male category is a lot smaller of a category than black female in the general population. it's also much higher of a risk. so it makes sense. stop screaming about discrimination when it's just a simple statistical matter.

# posted by  Anonymous : 12:13 AM, May 10, 2007

 

Post a Comment