January is National Blood Donor Month, honoring the nearly four million U.S. citizens that donate blood each year and serving as a reminder that every day approximately 39,000 units of blood are required in hospitals and emergency rooms. I’m definitely patting myself on the back right now, as I’ve donated blood virtually every year for the past 10 years. In addition to weight (I've never had an issue meeting that prerequisite) and age requirements, a potential donor cannot be a man who has engaged in gay sex. A quarter of a century ago, the U.S. FDA instituted what has affectionately been termed the “gay blood ban,” prohibiting any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from giving blood.
Back in the 1980s, in response to the overwhelming AIDs crisis, banning gay men from donating blood was thought of as a way to keep the nation’s blood supply as “clean” as possible. This was based on the idea that men who have had sex with other men are at higher risk of contracting HIV and hepatitis, posing health risks to potential blood recipients. Interestingly enough, I could have an intimate evening with say, Neil Patrick Harris, and give blood 12 months later, but under the rules, NPH can’t donate if he’s engaged in gay sex…ever. It doesn’t matter if you’re in a serious, monogamous relationship, have been celibate since 1978 or have an incredibly rare blood type, like AB negative – if you’re a gay man, the FDA still says no.
I can try to understand the fear and the subsequent rationale between excluding high-risk groups from donating blood, especially considering how much less was known about HIV/AIDs back in the early 1980s. The fact remains that this ban, thanks to more information about HIV/AIDs and extensive blood testing post-donation, is not only antiquated but completely unnecessary. It furthers the idea that HIV/AIDs is a gay-only disease, fostering discrimination based on sexual orientation rather than scientific fact. The American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers and the AABB have all recommended to the FDA that the blood ban on gay donors be ended, changing the deferral time to match those of heterosexual donors, yet the ban remains in effect.
Thanks to modern science, education and awareness campaigns, we all know how HIV is transmitted. More importantly, donated blood undergoes an extensive screening process during the time it’s donated and when it actually gets used, including testing for the HIV virus. Yes, HIV/AIDs occurrences among gay and bisexual men are still incredibly high, yet if you look at the age/race demographics,black and Hispanic communities have been particularly affected by HIV/AIDs in the U.S. In 2007, 50 percent of all new HIV diagnoses were in black people…could you imagine the social uproar should the FDA decide that that the black community posed too great a risk for blood donation? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
SUBSCRIBE