Kerry speaks out: Don't discriminate in giving blood
I can only shake my head when I see those white posters with the iconic red crosses at the campus where I work.
Give blood? Sure.
Except that my blood is not the right kind of blood. My donation, after completing the form in which I am asked point-blank about my sex life, will be summarily thrown away–despite the fact that this blood could save another life.
Senator John Kerry wrote an eloquent, reasoned editorial calling for an end to this discriminatory practice in Boston’s local gay newspaper, Bay Windows. The distinguished statesman from my home state debunks the reasons that gay men are legally banned from donating blood in the United States.
Among the reasoned arguments:
- AIDS is not a “gay disease” (as was commonly–and mistakenly–understood in the early 80’s)
- High-risk behavior is not synonymous with gay men
- “If you have had heterosexual sex with someone you know is infected with HIV, you are deferred from donating blood for just one year. But a man who has had protected sex with a monogamous male partner, even one time 33 years ago, is barred for life from donating blood.”
I was surprised to see that Senator Kerry had authored the editorial–and published it in a progressive newspaper like Bay Windows. Reminds me of the importance of straight allies, of standing up for what’s right in public forums, and of not accepting the status quo, as I have in the past regarding the Red Cross’ discriminatory practices.
Kerry reminds us that the work of overturning outdated and morally judgmental laws such as this one have found success before. “Look at what we did with the discriminatory ban on travel and immigration for those infected with HIV. We gained the support of every major public safety organization in the country and worked to pass legislation lifting that ban.”
It’s time to change the way we confuse personal beliefs with social needs, and then translate these beliefs into law. A small example among many: the dire yet discriminatory need for donations of blood.
Ad:
Comments
This news makes me so so so happy
I'm elated to see a mainstream public figure taking this stance. Or even getting it. Every time there've been blood drives at places I've been connected with, pretty much no one is aware that gay men can't donate, and when it gets mentioned, a surprising number of people don't see anything wrong with the policy. FWIW, under the "high risk for HIV" (thus can't donate) category, they also list anyone who's ever used IV drugs, anyone who's ever had sex with a man who's had sex with a man, anyone who's exchanged money for sex, anyone who's ever had sex with someone who's done so, and so forth. It doesn't take into account whether it's been protected sex, and doesn't take into account people not knowing their former partners' sexual history. And of course all of this is ridiculous, because THEY TEST THE BLOOD FOR HIV.
What really doesn't make sense is that they'll take a person's word that they haven't had "high-risk" sex, haven't lived in countries with malaria, haven't had a blood transfusion in the UK, etc., and they'll let these people donate, but they won't take a person's word that, yes, I'm a gay man, and I've been tested for HIV, or I've only ever had protected sex, or whatever the case may be.
Bay Windows
Kerry's opinion piece, to bypass the bloggy self-promotion.
About time
I was one donation away form my gallon pin when they put these restrictions in place.
The question asked is something like "have you had sex of any kind with a man since 1977". Most gay men 'willingly' answered the questions honestly and didn't donate blood. Straight men who might have had anonymous 'rest room' and potentially unprotected sex are NOT ever going to answer 'yes' to that question, and then donate blood anyway. How was this ever 'safer'???
Another drawback of not being able to donate blood: you are also ineligible to register for the bone marrow database.
Would be nice to be treated like a regular person and be able to donate blood again...