by Kelly Roache
Yesterday, 18 US Senators – including New Jersey’s own Frank Lautenberg – petitioned the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner to lift the standing lifetime ban on blood donation by gay men. Led by Senator John Kerry, the legislators are fighting a statute that bars men who have had sex with men (MSM) since 1977 from donating. My first reaction upon reading the headline was admittedly one of surprise – not regarding the repeal, but rather the fact that this law was still on the books. More surprising yet was the discovery that similar laws exist in Canada, Denmark, Finland France, Germany, Iceland, and the Netherlands – more socially liberal countries with a better record on LGBT rights.
One might be able to argue that the law was passed in an era where the origins and methods of transmission of HIV/AIDS were still uncertain, something to be feared. But today, donated blood must undergo two extremely rigorous – and accurate – tests for the virus before entering the transfusion pool. According to the CDC, thanks to this new technology, less than one percent of all new HIV/AIDS infections are transmitted via blood donation. The American Red Cross and a host of other leading authorities have called the MSM blood ban “medically and scientifically unwarranted.”
Still, the issue at hand remains one of discrimination. By law, potential donors who, on their questionnaire, admit to heterosexual sex with an HIV-positive individual are only barred from giving blood for one year; such activity, especially unprotected, puts the transfusion pool at a greater risk than that of individuals in a committed homosexual relationship, who are automatically banned for life. This law has little to do with safe sex practices, which in this day and age are realistically a barometer of one’s chances of contracting HIV.
I don’t profess to be a medical expert, and perhaps my perspective would be somewhat different were I on the receiving end of a transfusion. According to the World Federation of Hemophilia, the HIV/AIDS rate among MSM is 60 times higher than that of the general population, and it is true that the transfusion recipient does bear 100% of the burden of risk. But by the same token, perhaps my perspective would be exactly the same, if not more fervently in favor of the repeal of this law. Other associations for those with chronic blood diseases have been pushing for such legislative action, the beneficiaries of a broader blood donor pool. In my hometown, outside of the blood donation center, at least three times a year a board is displayed imploring residents to donate in order to end the shortage. Why unnecessarily limit the available pool?
In its current form, the Senators’ action has only come in the form of a recommendation to the FDA. It remains to be seen if they will push further for a compromise position, such as allowing homosexuals to abide by the same one-year HIV/AIDS-free period as heterosexuals prior to donation. In light of President Obama’s promise to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and similarly discriminatory laws – such as those regarding blood donation – only time will tell if he will truly take action on these LGBT issues.
