Red is a Part of the Rainbow too
Last Tuesday, hundreds of students and faculty rushed down to the Sullivan student center to donate blood to the American Red Cross blood bank. I was late to the party and I didn’t get a chance to supply the bank with my near useless B negative blood. However, I did get a chance to discuss the donation process with some of my fellow Arts Annex housemates. The most excited donor I had a chance to chat with was my dear friend Luke Matys, best known for his satirical opinions column “No Spitting”. As Luke and I discussed the best type of blood to donate (O negative), Luke informed me of an injustice that I was unaware of. Apparently, gay men are deferred when they attempt to give blood. I was surprised that such institutionalized prejudice still exists in 2015. Haven’t we moved past the stigma that gay men are responsible for spreading sexually transmitted diseases? After all, much of our modern science shows that sexually transmitted diseases are spread through having unprotected, unsafe sex, and blood-to-blood contact with an infected individual regardless of sexual orientation.
I wanted to research the FDA’s defense of this apparent discrimination. After all, if this was a law enforced by the government, they better have pretty sound reasoning to defend something so controversial (not that they need it, they’re the government, they do what they want). Anyway, the FDA did bring up a pretty good point to defend their unjust reasoning. MSM (Men who have Sex with other Men) are in a category with the highest risk for HIV. Although MSM only make up two percent of the US population, they account for 61% of new infections.
The FDA’s policy is aimed on decreasing the risk for transmissible infections. The FDA even notes that their policy of deferring homosexual men from donation is, “Not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation.” The FDA continues to note that although the total percentage of the population diagnosed with HIV has decreased, the percentage of MSM diagnosed with HIV has actually increased.
My next question is, where and when did this policy emerge? Who was the first person diagnosed with the disease? My questions lead my research to the study of patient zero. For years, patient zero remained anonymous until a man by the name of Randy Shilts published a book called And the Band Played on. The story took an in depth look at Gaetan Dugas. According to the study in this book, the former Canadian Airline steward single handedly caused the HIV epidemic in North American. Even after Dugas became aware of his illness he still continued having unprotected sex with men and women. After he engaged in sexual intercourse with a man, he would tell his partner that they now had “gay cancer” and they were going to die. He appears to have been a less-than-admirable human being, and because of his irrational actions, a stigma has been attached to the gay community.
But this was decades ago, and times have changed dramatically. We must also consider that not all gay men engage in promiscuous lifestyles. Many gay men are married happily to one partner and engage in safe sex. We must also consider that many gay men engage in safe sex with multiple partners. We live in a time where there is a lot of information available on safe sex, and it is possible to stay healthy under the covers.
Let’s get back on topic here. We’ve been examining whether gay men should be able to donate blood. We’ve examined the roots of HIV in America, and the FDA’s policy regarding lifetime deferment of gay men from blood donation. What has been proposed in other nations (Australia, Argentina, Japan, Hungary, and Sweden) is a one-year deferment policy. Under this policy, gay men would be able return a year after being deferred the first time to donate blood, so long as their blood is still clean. This policy already exists for heterosexuals who’ve engaged in sexual intercourse with someone diagnosed with HIV, so the FDA would just be extending the policy. This new policy would also ensure that gay men are not marginalized. A 2010 study found that under the one-year deferment policy, “No evidence of a significantly increased risk of transfusion-transmitted HIV.” Clearly this program would result more blood for the entire country, which is a significant benefit. Let’s not forget that Red is a part of the rainbow too.
As per usual, here are the voices of campus. This week’s question: Should gay men be allowed to donate blood?
“Yeah. As long as they go through the tests that everyone else does. You shouldn’t eliminate a group based on stereotypes that have long been object and disproved.”
“You’re a brangus Bobby.”
“If the hassle of testing blood is more expensive than it’s worth than I guess it makes sense.”
“Gay intercourse has a higher chance of transmitting HIV.”
“Yeah, I have anal sex all the time and they let me give blood. I’m female by the way.”