Blood Can Save a Life -- IF Allowed
Imagine: A tragic event stikes America once again, leaving a number of victims being transported to the hospital in need of blood. Of course you'd like to donate! But, if you are a sexually active gay man, don't be hopeful that they will accept your blood due to a ban. As I have mentioned numerous times before, the LGBTQ community if fighting for their equality concerning things like, marriage, anti-discrimination laws, bathroom/locker room usage and now blood donation.
This ban, according to The Columbian Medical Review, originated in 1983 in response to the HIV/AIDS scare. The government's original intentions were in emergency mode, trying to stop something so deadly from spreading; but this turned into a permanent policy for the next 30+ years. The people who were found to be most at risk were: "men who have sex with men (MSM), women who have sex with MSM, and transgender people who were categorized as MSM." This ban was just supposed to be a preventative measure, even Haitian immigrants were banned to donate blood, but only till 1990 when that ban was lifted due to new testing techniques.
In 2016, The Center for Disease Control and Prevention, reported that "gay and bisexual men accounted for 67% of all HIV diagnoses and 83% of diagnoses among males." Among all races, genders, and sexual orientations, gay men represent the highest percentage of those who are infected by the HIV virus. Due to theses findings, physicians and government officials believe strongly that this ban on MSM donation is justified. However, the ban has been recently modified. As of 2014, MSMs are allowed to donate if they sustain from any sexual intercourse for at least twelve months. This is major improvement from the lifetime ban before it but behind where the UK is now.
space space space. In recent years, the law in the United Kingdom has changed, MSMs who wish to donate blood must sustain from sex three months prior to their intended donation date. Law makers claim this change in time frame is due to "improved NHS testing measures, which can establish whether someone has a blood infection such as HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C or syphilis within that time period." (Independent) But the controversy begins here, primarily HIV (and other listed infections) can be detected within a month of being infected. So why make MSMs wait two months longer in the UK and eleven months longer in the US?
The LGBTQ community is still outraged by this ban especially in the midst of the hysteria following the Las Vegas shooting, when many people rushed to local hospitals and blood donation centers to do what they could to help those who were physically suffering. Even if a gay man is abstinent or in a monogamous relationship the ban still applies. Despite heterosexual men and women who could possibly be participating in sex with a great deal of people, also not being precautious using condoms, blood donation centers accept their blood and platelets without a second thought.
Many LGBTQ celebrities spoke out during the time of the Las Vegas shooting in 2017 to raise awareness for this discriminatory ban. The Huffington Post reported that Lance Bass tweeted, "How is it STILL illegal for gays to donate blood??!! I want to donate and I'm not allowed. 😤" Jeffrey Self tweeted, "So very right on and I'm going to do all these things. Except give blood. I would but I can't. I'm a gay American." Plenty of people contributed to this twitter frenzy explaining that they had many friends in Vegas who'd love to donate! But, they are gay so they weren't allowed to. The potential benefits of lifting this ban have been explored.
Gallup reported that in 2016 more than 4% of the adult US population and 7.3% of millennials reported they were apart of the LGBTQ community. So to put that in perspective, over ten million adults identify as LGBTQ. This is a very large population, a statistic that surprises most. So how does this affect blood donation? The Williams Institute (UCLA School of Law), reported that if the ban of blood donation for gay men was lifted, "An additional 360,000 men would likely donate 615,300 additional pints of blood each year." This would increase the annual blood supply by 2-4%!
There are clear benefits - increased blood supply - and drawbacks - further spread of the HIV virus - of this ban being lifted. Wikipedia lists that countries like the United States and Australia are actively keeping their one year safety period; while other countries like the United Kingdom and Japan established a three to six month waiting period. This is a step up from countries like Austria and China who still uphold their lifetime ban but a step down from Italy and Mexico who don't turn away any men who have sex with men.
So what is safe? What is politically correct? And what is discrimination?
 |
| From The Daily Beast |
This ban, according to The Columbian Medical Review, originated in 1983 in response to the HIV/AIDS scare. The government's original intentions were in emergency mode, trying to stop something so deadly from spreading; but this turned into a permanent policy for the next 30+ years. The people who were found to be most at risk were: "men who have sex with men (MSM), women who have sex with MSM, and transgender people who were categorized as MSM." This ban was just supposed to be a preventative measure, even Haitian immigrants were banned to donate blood, but only till 1990 when that ban was lifted due to new testing techniques.
In 2016, The Center for Disease Control and Prevention, reported that "gay and bisexual men accounted for 67% of all HIV diagnoses and 83% of diagnoses among males." Among all races, genders, and sexual orientations, gay men represent the highest percentage of those who are infected by the HIV virus. Due to theses findings, physicians and government officials believe strongly that this ban on MSM donation is justified. However, the ban has been recently modified. As of 2014, MSMs are allowed to donate if they sustain from any sexual intercourse for at least twelve months. This is major improvement from the lifetime ban before it but behind where the UK is now.
 |
| From Imgur |
space space space. In recent years, the law in the United Kingdom has changed, MSMs who wish to donate blood must sustain from sex three months prior to their intended donation date. Law makers claim this change in time frame is due to "improved NHS testing measures, which can establish whether someone has a blood infection such as HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C or syphilis within that time period." (Independent) But the controversy begins here, primarily HIV (and other listed infections) can be detected within a month of being infected. So why make MSMs wait two months longer in the UK and eleven months longer in the US?
The LGBTQ community is still outraged by this ban especially in the midst of the hysteria following the Las Vegas shooting, when many people rushed to local hospitals and blood donation centers to do what they could to help those who were physically suffering. Even if a gay man is abstinent or in a monogamous relationship the ban still applies. Despite heterosexual men and women who could possibly be participating in sex with a great deal of people, also not being precautious using condoms, blood donation centers accept their blood and platelets without a second thought.
 |
| From Trinity News |
Many LGBTQ celebrities spoke out during the time of the Las Vegas shooting in 2017 to raise awareness for this discriminatory ban. The Huffington Post reported that Lance Bass tweeted, "How is it STILL illegal for gays to donate blood??!! I want to donate and I'm not allowed. 😤" Jeffrey Self tweeted, "So very right on and I'm going to do all these things. Except give blood. I would but I can't. I'm a gay American." Plenty of people contributed to this twitter frenzy explaining that they had many friends in Vegas who'd love to donate! But, they are gay so they weren't allowed to. The potential benefits of lifting this ban have been explored.
Gallup reported that in 2016 more than 4% of the adult US population and 7.3% of millennials reported they were apart of the LGBTQ community. So to put that in perspective, over ten million adults identify as LGBTQ. This is a very large population, a statistic that surprises most. So how does this affect blood donation? The Williams Institute (UCLA School of Law), reported that if the ban of blood donation for gay men was lifted, "An additional 360,000 men would likely donate 615,300 additional pints of blood each year." This would increase the annual blood supply by 2-4%!
 |
| From Huck Magazine |
There are clear benefits - increased blood supply - and drawbacks - further spread of the HIV virus - of this ban being lifted. Wikipedia lists that countries like the United States and Australia are actively keeping their one year safety period; while other countries like the United Kingdom and Japan established a three to six month waiting period. This is a step up from countries like Austria and China who still uphold their lifetime ban but a step down from Italy and Mexico who don't turn away any men who have sex with men.
So what is safe? What is politically correct? And what is discrimination?
I had no idea that gay men were not allowed to donate blood. I understand why the ban was created at the time but that does not mean all men have HIV/AIDs. This is not benefitting anyone because there are people that need blood and there are people who want to give it to them but this ban is prevent them from helping
ReplyDeleteWow, I had no idea that there was a ban on gay men having a ban for donating blood. To me that honestly seems kind of ludicrous. I mean I understand not accepting blood from someone who has HIV/AIDS or has ever tested positive, but turning them away because they are gay is discrimination. In recent years, evidence has actually showing that in more developed countries like the United States, HIV is more rapidly spread through men having sex with women, not gay men anymore, so giving them a certain criteria to meet that heterosexual people don't have to comply with is completely unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteEven when people are bleeding out or dying in a hospital bed, they're still picky! "Hrm, yes, I want my blood to come from free-range, cis-gender, heterosecual, preferably white homosapians". I saw a picture once, where it had bags of blood side by side to each other, and it said "can you tell which one is from a gay man and which one is not?" The point is, blood is blood, and we all need it. If you have HIV/AIDS, then obviously you shouldn't be donating blood, LGBTQ or otherwise. But, if you're perfectly healthy and want to save a life, why should it matter who you have sex with?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea that this was another thing LGBTQ+ people had to worry about. Just when I think the world is making great strides in equality, there’s another thing brought to my attention that I didn’t even know existed. It goes to show that we are far from equality and there’s a lot of changing not just rules and laws, but culture and perspective that needs to be done.
DeleteThis was a very interesting post! I had absolutely no idea that gay men could not donate their blood. I feel as if someone is in a life or death situation and could be cured by someone's blood, they should not care whether the blood is from straight or gay individuals. Also, AIDS/HIV is not only present in gay men. Straight women and men could also have AIDS/HIV, but they can still donate their blood. Doesn't seem fair to me!
ReplyDeleteThis is so interesting. I have honestly never heard of a ban on gay men from giving blood. I do understand why the ban was necessary during the HIV epidemic, but as usual the U.S. is failing to modernize its laws to keep up with the current technology and research. Clearly there is still a large bias toward the LGBTQ community, and it is very disappointing that we are restricting their ability to help people who are in dire need.
ReplyDeleteIt's terrible that this ban still exists. Donating blood is one way of enacting our civic duty, and nobody should be prevented from doing so because of their sexual orientation or the gender they as.
ReplyDeleteHi Mckenzie! I was aware that gay men were not allowed to donate blood, but I did not understand why. I knew that all people were susceptible to STI's and HIV, but neglected the fact that gay men are the most susceptible. I don't know what the safest thing to do is. However, I do think that with all the advancements in scientific technology that we can find a way to find an immediate test for HIV/AIDS so that these gay men can donate. Especially after Las Vegas, I can only imagine that the benefits will outweigh the negatives. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI've always found this controversy pretty interesting. On the one hand, it makes sense to be very careful about the blood received from gay men. I think I read somewhere once that gay men are something like 40x more likely to contract HIV than heterosexual people. So, I can understand the perspective of the hospitals for being wary. At the same time, I always thought that the blood was tested before being administered. Maybe they want to minimize the acquisition of "bad blood," but it seems weird to just ban the donation in general since there is testing. I think if gay men were able to provide proof of being clear of HIV, a lot of this controversy would be solved. 2%-4% increase in blood does not sound like a lot, but hospitals are always in need of blood (especially O-) so it really is a big deal!
ReplyDeleteDefinitely an eye-opening post, both about the fact that gay men are not allowed to donate blood and the statistics about how many people are part of the LGBT community in the United States. Antoher thing that unfortunately makes us more separate than united - definitely not the kind of thing we need in our world now. I think, as you mentioned, that the Las Vegas shooting case was a really good example since more lives might have been saved if gays would have been allowed to donate blood. We'll see if the government does anything about this (unfortunately I doubt they will).
ReplyDelete