2008 Woodie Awards
SJSU moratorium represents farsighted, much needed step
FDA should lift ban on gay men's blood
Issue date: 3/3/08 Section: Editorial
Wait, what? You're gay? No, no thanks. No gay blood allowed. Eww.
When a blood drive was held at De Anza two weeks ago, the issue of the Food and Drug Administration's lifetime ban on homosexual men giving blood was raised yet again. A little more than a month ago, San Jose State University suspended all campus blood drives because of the ban, which prevents any men who have engaged in homosexual sexual activity since 1977 from giving blood at all.
It's beyond question that this unreasonable and discriminatory ban should end.
It remains unclear, however, whether SJSU's decision to cut off the blood banks entirely was the right one, given the need for blood in this area.
It's true that HIV is more prevalent in the homosexual community than in the straight community, but if you're trying to collect life-saving blood supplies, should you simply never accept blood from a homosexual man? Even if that particular man has always practiced safe sex and has passed a blood test?
The answer that the Food and Drug Administration has come up with is somewhat alarming.
Like insurance agencies that blindly raise rates based on whether a person is male or female, young or old, driving in a red car or a black one, the FDA has set up a blanket ban on sexually active gay men's blood.
But this ban does a lot more damage than raising someone's rates; it raises serious questions about government policies and attitudes.
The ban does not take into account the fact that if someone is having safe sex - regardless of whether they are gay or straight - their chances of contracting HIV are next to none. Unsafe sex is another disqualifier for donating blood, as it should be.
But the reason the FDA distinguishes safe sex between a man and a woman from safe sex between two men is beyond understanding - unless that reason is homophobia.
The recent decision by SJSU was a bold step to make a statement about the policies toward blood collection in the United States. The ultimate judgment on whether their decision was right depends on the relative weights of its short and long term effects.
When a blood drive was held at De Anza two weeks ago, the issue of the Food and Drug Administration's lifetime ban on homosexual men giving blood was raised yet again. A little more than a month ago, San Jose State University suspended all campus blood drives because of the ban, which prevents any men who have engaged in homosexual sexual activity since 1977 from giving blood at all.
It's beyond question that this unreasonable and discriminatory ban should end.
It remains unclear, however, whether SJSU's decision to cut off the blood banks entirely was the right one, given the need for blood in this area.
It's true that HIV is more prevalent in the homosexual community than in the straight community, but if you're trying to collect life-saving blood supplies, should you simply never accept blood from a homosexual man? Even if that particular man has always practiced safe sex and has passed a blood test?
The answer that the Food and Drug Administration has come up with is somewhat alarming.
Like insurance agencies that blindly raise rates based on whether a person is male or female, young or old, driving in a red car or a black one, the FDA has set up a blanket ban on sexually active gay men's blood.
But this ban does a lot more damage than raising someone's rates; it raises serious questions about government policies and attitudes.
The ban does not take into account the fact that if someone is having safe sex - regardless of whether they are gay or straight - their chances of contracting HIV are next to none. Unsafe sex is another disqualifier for donating blood, as it should be.
But the reason the FDA distinguishes safe sex between a man and a woman from safe sex between two men is beyond understanding - unless that reason is homophobia.
The recent decision by SJSU was a bold step to make a statement about the policies toward blood collection in the United States. The ultimate judgment on whether their decision was right depends on the relative weights of its short and long term effects.
Be the first to comment on this story