Don't Recklessly Overturn the Gay Blood Donor Ban

Reader Comments
Back to article

According to the current blood donation policies, I am allowed to donate blood even if I spent the last ten years having unprotected sex with a HIV positive, IV drug using prostitute so long as I wait one year. Yet, if I had safe sex once with another man 20 years ago but have been celibate since then, I'm considered too high of a risk to be allowed to donate. This policy was put in place by political pressure twenty five years ago and has remained in place because of the marginalization of gays in our society. If we really wanted to eliminate risk, we should bar anybody who has ever had sex with a prostitute or had sex with somebody who has ever used IV drugs or who has ever had unprotected sex. None of the questions on the screening ask about protected sex versus unprotected sex. They only ask about whether the sex was heterosexual or homosexual. Does that really strike you as doing an honest risk-based assessment or just targeting gays?
For the mother who lost her son: I'm sorry for your loss. But are you really blaming every gay person alive today for a contaminated blood supply in the mid-80s? To be blunt, if somebody was HIV positive in the mid-80s, there's very little chance that they'd even be alive today. The people you're angry with are most likely dead.
I am HIV-, CMV- and O-. What that means is that my blood can be given to anybody. I am the universal donor. For those that don't know, CMV is a virus carried by most people that has no affect on a person with a healthy immune system but can kill those with a compromised immune system (like those with AIDS, premature babies, patients on immune suppressing drugs, cancer patients, etc.). So those with my blood type are in high demand. However, unless I lie about my sexual history, I'm barred from donate blood, donating organs, or donating bone marrow.

Sean of WA 8:49PM March 05, 2011

I am a mother who watched her wonderful son who had hemophilia die at the age of 27. He was a talented sports writer who received many awards. I listened to his tears of agony and cry out "No body cares." He was right. I was active in the hemophilia community and tried to reason with the gay community to stop giving blood when there was no test in the 70' and 80' . they insisted it was their right to give blood even knowing that so many were infected with Hep. C and HIV. One group even said in a video that when they infect the young and old people will pay attention to the gay community.
The hemophilia community did not have a choice, the gay community did. Because of the infected blood supply that killed thousands and left our families with continual agony I feel it is wrong the for gay community to even think about giving blood , they should have some shame of the part they played in the hemophilia holocaust.It is no ones right to give blood.It is however my right to allow someone to give blood to me or my children.
Stop and think !!!! I wish no harm on anyone, I only wish the gay community wished no harm on my son and others.

roberta of MI 1:30PM January 23, 2011

Any sane person knows that being gay is not a reason to stop blood doning. I was surprised and had no idea this was the case. Truth is those opposing if on thier death beds would accept the blood no doubts. Im not gay but can see no reason for such a ban. All the bloods are tested. Get a life most people dont even give blood let those who would do.

jerry of NY 8:11AM August 03, 2010

I request my own personal stores as I "donate" for myself Q3M. Call me prejudiced, racist, or discriminatory all you want!
....I simply feel much more comfortable w/ my own!
Have a nice day.

noproblemhere of CA 6:54AM July 27, 2010

You argue that gays are banned from donating blood only because they have higher infection rates.
So, based on your "scientific and epidemiological evidence about large groups of people," should not black people be banned from donating blood? African-Americans are infected at much higher rates, too, right?
And why not ban whole areas that have high infection rates, too? Ban everyone in the District of Columbia. Ban all of Baton Rouge, San Juan, San Francisco, New Orleans, Miami, New York, Jackson, Jacksonville, Columbia, and Atlanta....
After nearly 30 years of scientific study, the epidemiological evidence points to a specific, relatively short window period between the date of infection and the ability to test for the virus that causes AIDS. Not to mention great improvements in the methods used to do so.
The truth is, many, many gay men safely fit outside of that window period and are willing to donate precious blood. Sound science says there is no reason these individuals should be excluded.
Can't you just say that you're still scared. That you personally are just not sure? Rather than claiming it's "scientific," can't you, Mark Skinner, just stand up and say "I personally am still afraid of blood from gay men! And I know some hemophiliacs who feel the same way."
I think we can all understand your mental anguish, but a blanket ban on gay men's blood donations makes no "scientific" sense -- no more than banning blood from the African-American community nor from residents who live in cities with high infection rates.

DC Blood Driver of DC 1:37AM July 27, 2010

When science is dominated by politics or a state religion, then science MUST conform to the preset values of the moment. If the state or state religion says 2 + 2 = 5 then science better damn well say the same thing.
Why? You want to work? You want to live? You want health care? Toe the party line other wise there are dramatic consequences for the individual. It is the state, the community that is worth more than the individual. They will claim collection salvation is God's way! And if you do not agree with the state or community then you are a heretic and must be cleansed or purged. No individuals should apply.
If we allow Social Justice to prevail, then all of the gay & lesbian community can donate blood regarding of the consequences of any potential illness. Of course, then only the gay & lesbian community should get that blood. And while we are on social justice then only Jews can donate to Jews and African Americans to African Americans and Arabs to Arabs and Europeans to Europeans and so forth.
Social justice is justice based on social standing. It is "separate but equal" justice. But in practice social justice will never be equal justice. Why? Because each group is better than the other in their own minds.
I can imagine the new dark age of science when political & social injustice over rules science. Don't believe me? Just look at how science in the Arab countries MUST conform to the Koran and its Inmans.

John R. Carpenter of CA 8:48PM July 26, 2010

While you've got your eyes on HIV, your blood products could be getting tainted with XMRV. The CDC has failed to take this new retroviral risk seriously because it is linked to CFS, a disease which we know only affects hysterical women. We hysterical women with our imaginary infection will not be deferred from donating blood.

Creek of CA 6:42PM July 26, 2010

I am in a "traditional" marriage and monogamous.
I understand about the statistically higher likelihood of having AIDS tainted blood in gay donors, but this law is prejudicial/homophobic profiling.
No one asks a hetero blood donor how many sex partners they've had in a month/year, before they can donate blood. It's "Thank you much, here's your orange juice, don't stand up too fast for awhile."
But this law assumes that because you're gay, you're promiscuous, when there are just as many heteros who are promiscuous and may or may not practice safe sex.

Jarrell of WV 4:43PM July 26, 2010

This is so typical of the Democrats to play politics and try to reverse the ban on gay blood. Homosexuals are by and large extremely permiscous and it's unconscionable to use their blood indiscriminately just to pander for votes.

SC Guy of SC 2:18PM July 26, 2010

I'm a healthy monogamous gay physician, who has 'O-neg' blood (ie a rare universal donor) and have twice been a marrow match. I haven't been able to donate blood or marrow because of this inane rule, despite my willingness to do so and despite the desperate need of those patients who could have benefited from my donation. How can maintaining the current deferral process make sense when patients are being deprived donors in this way?

cgr2007 of MA 12:56PM July 26, 2010