Gay blood ban at the American Red Cross

[dsdrane]

David, over at www.queerty.com (http://www.queerty.com/), reminds us of the ARC's quarter-century-long ban on gay men -- indeed any man who has had sex with another man since 1977(!) -- giving blood. Read the article here (http://www.queerty.com/gay-men-cannot-donate-blood-what-a-stupid-policy-20090116/).

Perhaps this might be a good place for the Obama Administration to start some fence-mending...?

[Alecto]

I don't suppose there's an official Soulforce stance, but um...what do forum people feel is the appropriate reaction to this ban?

If I'm fully informed about my status, is it morally acceptable to lie (especially when you balance how desperate the blood banks say they are and how much they need donors)?

[Matt Algren]

Point of order, the Red Cross has been fighting to get the ban removed for some time. The FDA last took up the issue and refused in 2007. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10540971)

[Zerbie]

One of our local organizers is planning a Right To Save action here in Phoenix this spring. She says Phoenix is a testing ground for a potential national action to overturn the ban.

[Alecto]

What kind of action? ::is intrigued::

[Zerbie]

I only know the slightest bit about the action, which is why I did not elaborate. As I understand it, she wants to collect a large number of HIV negative gay men to show up, declare themselves gay and HIV negative and ask to donate blood. The Red Cross has to refuse them, although they also want the ban overturned. So her plan is to video every man being turned down. That way, if the appropriate agency (I don't recall what agency that is - anyone?) continues to uphold its ban 90 days after the Phoenix action, the videos will be you tubed and the action will go national.

At least, that is what I have heard and understood - I may have some details off, or the plan may have changed by now. As I hear more, I'll report back.

[dsdrane]

Potentially very powerful.

[Matt Algren]

(I don't recall what agency that is - anyone?)
It's the FDA.

[Zerbie]

It's the FDA.

Heheh. :lol:

I just logged on to edit my post and state that it's the FDA. :p
Thanks, Matt.

[BruceChris]

I had a risk factor back in the early 80's. By law, that means I must have aids, and back then, you were dead in ~ 2 years. So that's why I can't give blood, I've been legally dead for 25 years! . :sick: :flower2: :flower:

R.I.P., Bruce Chris

[Eugene]

I don't want to give blood, and I don't want to serve in the military (too old now anyway). So I've never seen it as a problem. I've considered it a trump card in case I were ever expected to donate blood or go to war.

Yes I know that isn't politically correct, but it's honest at least.

[Unmasked]

It's actually quite an invigorating experience. Bloodletting is quite beneficial, and if you play the drives right you can get a t-shirt out of the deal.

[Matt Algren]

I don't want to give blood, and I don't want to serve in the military (too old now anyway). So I've never seen it as a problem. I've considered it a trump card in case I were ever expected to donate blood or go to war.

Yes I know that isn't politically correct, but it's honest at least.
Why not? It doesn't cost anything...

[Alecto]

I feel the same way about the mlitary, but I'm a bit foggier on giving blood. The people who are making the rules here are NOT the people who actually need the blood; I can't just say "Well if they don't want mine, they can't have it" because they're not the ones being affected.

[keltic63]

I regularly donated blood when I was still permitted to. as I recall, I donated well over a gallon of A negative, which is somewhat rare. They used to call me and ask me to come in to give.

There's no reason to believe that my blood isn't as good now as it was then. and although I would occasionally get light-headed, or feel as though I might faint, I was always happy to give because I knew my blood would help someone else. It hurts that I can no longer do that!

[Matt Algren]

Keep in mind that they do test donated blood for numerous diseases and dispose of blood that doesn't qualify for donation. So the ban is not only objectionable on prejudicial grounds, it's redundant.

[sjbouza]

Keep in mind that they do test donated blood for numerous diseases and dispose of blood that doesn't qualify for donation. So the ban is not only objectionable on prejudicial grounds, it's redundant.

My husband and I have had this exact discussion. The blood is tested, to a health extreme, now-a-days. It isn't like there is much of a chance that HIV+ blood will have a chance to get past the testing. I personally know of several people that are gay that have given blood that have not disclosed that they are gay. However, they know their status. They want to be able to help in any way they can. The RC is constantly crying for blood donations, but they are willing to turn away blood from a certain sect of people.

Now I could understand if HIV/AIDS was specific to just gay men. However, it is not. The rates of HIV infection are pretty much the same between hetero and homosexual classes. In fact if they want to disqualify gay men from donation because of anal sex, then they better start asking all the women out there if they have ever engaged in that practice too. Just because its a "straight guy" that is plowing her rear doesn't make it any less of an issue. Anal sex is anal sex no matter who the receiver is. So by their own standards anyone that has ever engaged in anal sex should be disqualified. I am sure there are plenty of "straight guys" out there that have "experimented" at least once in their life.

If they did that, then they would have no blood to work with. Hell, Japan has been using an artificial blood product for years. The FDA just won't approve it here. They cannot see the benefits of it.

My 2 cents,
Scott

[Alecto]

See, they DO ask the same questions about behavior of all people. There's no question "are you gay". It's "Have you ever, even once, had sex with another man since 198x?" (I forgot the exact year). And they ask women if they've ever had sex with someone who has had sex with another man since whatever year. The difference? We're the only ones with a PERMANENT ban: everyone else is asked about their behavior in the past two years. ANd presumably, if they answer "yes", they can come back and donate once that answer is different because enough time has passed. But appearantly HIV works differently in gay men and has a permanent window period.

[dsdrane]

It's a backward policy and needs to be changed.

Yesterday.

[Unmasked]

Again, it's not the fault of the American Red Cross. The policy was made when we were terrified of AIDS, but the testing equipment is sufficiently advanced enough to detect infected blood without a trace of doubt. It is the FDA that will not evaluate the equipment and allow them to change the policy. Until the FDA gets of their collective ass, it is illegal for the American Red Cross to accept blood from men have had another man's bits anywhere near them.

The FDA is backwards and obstructive. They make money by being dickheads.

[dsdrane]

...however, it really doesn't matter whose fault it is.

Perhaps Sec. Tom Daschle of Health & Human Services and/or whoever is named the new Surgeon General, once confirmed, can bring some pressure to bear....

[Xero Eclipse]

My boyfriend and I went to donate blood, and while I'm blacklisted and he isn't, we got to draw from a lottery thingie (me because I still 'attempted' to give blood) and won tickets for our families to join us at the Celine Dion concert later that week in Nashville, although from up in the nosebleed section for them. Haha, you never know what will happen when you [try to] donate blood.

I also tried calling the Red Cross about overturning my indefinite referral, claiming ignorance when I originally filled out the paperwork in high school, but I was never contacted back (probably cause they saw what I was banned for and didn't want to bother arguing with me in a call back). :(... I guess I'll just have to try to not be blatantly homosexual while holding my boyfriend's hand when he gives blood in the future, haha.