Gay Sperm Donors Face Ban

[Mdlftr]

This is WAAY off topic, but it was in the news this a.m., so I thought I'd ask:

Is there any medical basis to this? What about straight people with AIDS? Isn't there a better way to screen than this?

From an AP story:

The U.S. Government is about to implement new rules recommending that any man who has engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor.

The Food and Drug Administration has rejected calls to scrap the provision, insisting that gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus.

Critics accuse the FDA of stigmatizing all gay men rather than adopting a screening process that focuses on high-risk sexual behavior by any would-be donor, gay or straight.

Although there is disagreement over whether the FDA guideline regarding gay men will have the force of law, most doctors and clinics are expected to observe it.

The practical effect of the provision --- part of a broader set of cell and tissue donation regulations that take effect May 25 -- is hard to gauge. It is the provision's symbolic aspect that particularly troubles gay-rights groups.
Kevin Cathcart, excutive director of Lambda Legal, has called it "policy based on bigotry."

[optimusx]

Hmm.. well looking at the statistics from the CDC it looks like there is about a 3.5:1 relationship between homosexual transmission versus hetero (when looking only at the males) in 2003. Now that is just an estimate and doesn't include drug useage, blood transfusions, etc. If you look at the cumulative data there is a 2:1 relationship between homosexual relations and injection drug use.

The biggest problem with these numbers from the CDC are that they are estimates. Additionally, there probably is a ton of fudging going on with the numbers since it doesn't mention bisexual relationships, etc. I would have to say the report is biased based on the fact that they did not break down the exposures into further catagories (like professional workhazord or as mentioned above bisexual relationships, or bisexual coupled with injected drugs) or even bothering to note what variances are present in their numbers. I also find that in the "others" catagory they lump "risks not reported or identified" Does anyone really believe that only 557 new unreported cases happened in 2003 (not forgetting that this also includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure... so 557 is no where near the number of unreported cases).

The CDC has in the past made a few mistakes (like their Obesity report which they withdrew a few weeks after posting it citing calculation errors... and which they fail to acknowledge when the newer numbers were far far far lower than they originally reported). So I don't find it hard to believe that they are being mandated to slant information that favors the popular beliefs (or at least that of the current administration).

The information can be found here for those interested: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure


As far as testing goes, I think everyone should be subject to testing. Disease rarely cares what the color of your skin or sexual orientation is and if these centers (and gov't) have the offspring's best interest at heart, they will do everything to ensure their health.

Scott

[brent]

This is just like the Red Cross banning us 'mos from donating blood. "et me just say that I'm am VERY glad I didn't need any blood if there screening technology is that bad. I remember donating blood in New Zealand in the late 1980s, and they screened the blood, not the donor's sexuality... Bigoted policies like this are why I will never donate anything to hate-filled, agenda-pushing agencies of the Republican party such as the Red Cross.

[UKBeefy]

Well it seems bigoted. Like our current blood transfusion rules (which seem to be similar to yours).


It does remove a possible source of easy income that some of us benefitted from in cllege.

[brent]

But school is only for straight kids...

[optimusx]

Ya know... if you just say you're not gay does that mean they'll take your (blood/sperm/other fluids)? I have to wonder if they'd do an extensive background check and all... considering they are mediocre at best in screening things as it is. It's not like there is a blood test to discover if you're gay or not (though, anyone interested in making a fortune should create one and market it like crazy - even if it doesn't work... the gov't will buy it )

I do find it extremely disheartening if/when organizations like the Red Cross start to eliminate a viable source of platlets, considering they are always harping on the local/national news that they are in dire need of such donations. "Sure we need blood, Oh - you're O Neg, well sorry, you're gay and we don't take your blood" It almost harkens back to the days of slavery when you had "colored" fountains , "colored" resturants and "colored" seats. People have not come as far as they would like to believe. We still find reason to isolate and therefore elevate ones own self-worth based on one demographic or another. We are a people ruled greatly by our own fears. Fears of insufficiency, of difference and of life. In the end fear is what motivates actions like the ones mentioned in this thread. It takes more than information and knowledge to change the mindset of the masses. It takes a true awearness, a full assimilation of the knowledge and experience to create wisdom and from that wisdom we grow.

Change takes time, people will make mistakes and as we learn from the mistakes, we mature. Hopefully one day people will learn that we are more than labels.

---End heavy monologue---




Scott

[brent]

Originally Posted by optimusx

Ya know... if you just say you're not gay does that mean they'll take your (blood/sperm/other fluids)? I have to wonder if they'd do an extensive background check and all... considering they are mediocre at best in screening things as it is.
...

Yeah, I thought about that too. I even went to sell my plasma once, but I couldn't lie. That was the one of the many times I've come to hate the fact that I can not lie. At all. I really tried. It might have been for the best, because most of the people there were homeless, and looked deathly ill. I was very glad to be out of that building.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by optimusx

Ya know... if you just say you're not gay does that mean they'll take your (blood/sperm/other fluids)?

Yes. I know plenty of gay men who lie when they give blood. The blood is tested for HIV, and these men have good reason to believe they are HIV- (for example, monogomous).

The religious right, and their bullies in government, want to keep gay people closeted. This is just another way that they are using the power of government to enforce their will.

[RadRx]

Although indirectly related, the topic of blood donations brings this to mind (along with Corwin's sig).

Charles Drew was the man responsible for developing the system for preserving donor blood. He also happened to be an African-American. When ordered by his superiors during the Civil War to segregate the blood by race he refused and tendered his resignation.

I'm just wondering how people expect to progress as a society if they refuse to fully acknowledge the contributions of everyone in it.

[brent]

I don't think most people want to progress as a society. They want to turn back the New Deal, and the progress of the progressive era. Unfortunately, I think they might be close to doing it soon.

[glammaman2000]

I don't think this is anything new.There is an implication that "fluids" from the general population are not being tested.(the honor system?)How creepy is that?When I first came to NY,there were commercial blood banks all over.There's also plenty of evidence that AIDS was in the IV drug community long before it hit gay men.&junkies sell their blood.Once the virus got into the gay community,however;there's no denying that serious promiscuity was a major factor in its spread.(I always thought the baths were a bad idea)

[pricemazda]

In the UK we have similar rules on giving blood.

I have given blood however and in the form I filled out they specifically say 'if you are a man who has had sex with a man even with using a condom then you cannot give blood'. What I objected to is what about straight couples who have anal sex? That must be fine then, why is it just men who have had anal sex?

[ottomun6]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Red Cross has stepped into the "holier than thou" attitude. What a shame, I guess I have to be more careful about my donations. Some friends have informed me that the Salvation Army also has problems about sexuality.
Thanks for the warning about the blood donation, I was actually thinking about donating blood, but not any more. I guess the Red Cross may end up putting itself into even lower blood supply levels. Lets hope and pray that they come around.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by ottomun6

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Red Cross has stepped into the "holier than thou" attitude. What a shame, I guess I have to be more careful about my donations. Some friends have informed me that the Salvation Army also has problems about sexuality.
Thanks for the warning about the blood donation, I was actually thinking about donating blood, but not any more. I guess the Red Cross may end up putting itself into even lower blood supply levels. Lets hope and pray that they come around.

This has been policy for about 20 years. It always surprises me that people are ignorant of it. My partner was at a work meeting where they were thinking of staging a blood drive, and asked him to organize it. He refused, citing this policy. The people at his office were dumbfounded because they had never heard of it it.

[ethernet_jock]

wow! I'd never heard that before either!

don't they test everything anyway?

[brent]

I've been aware of it for a long time, and stopped donating money to them 14 years ago.