Click Here!Click Here!
Home / Health / Gay Men React to a FDA’s Proposed Blood-Donation Guidelines
Gay Men React to a FDA’s Proposed Blood-Donation Guidelines

Gay Men React to a FDA’s Proposed Blood-Donation Guidelines

Photo: GARO/PHANIE/Corbis

The Food and Drug Administration endorsed changes to a 31-year-old anathema on blood donations from organisation who have sex with organisation Tuesday, instead suggesting that intensity masculine donors should have abstained from same-sex sex for during slightest 12 months before giving a present of life. The new discipline — like a decades-old anathema — branch from a fact that happy and bisexual organisation are some-more expected to be HIV certain than a ubiquitous race and therefore have a aloft luck of donating putrescent blood. But all blood is screened for a pathogen after donation, and today’s tests detect a pathogen reduction than dual weeks after infection — withdrawal many happy organisation and advocacy groups confused about a new proposal.

For many, a 12-month avoidance duration seems like a lifetime ban, and a routine seems to aim people formed on their identities rather than on a behaviors they rivet in. 

The Gay Men’s Health Crisis — that doesn’t only serve happy men, yet was founded initial as a response to a AIDS widespread depredation a happy village — called the new discipline “harmful”: “By implementing this policy, a FDA will continue to fan a abandon of a old-fashioned classify that HIV is usually a ‘gay disease.'”

One of those weighing in was longtime AIDS romantic Gregg Gonsalves:

Alongside other writers and activists:

Journalist and New York contributing editor Jesse Green, who has been essay about HIV/AIDS issues given a 1980s, finds a new discipline offensive: 

The FDA’s new routine is being hailed as an allege yet it’s not many of one. In fact, in some ways, a baby-step fearfulness creates it worse than no change during all. What we’re ostensible to be entertaining is a routine that no longer excludes all happy organisation from donating blood yet usually those happy organisation who have sex some-more than once a year. Which is to say, roughly all of them. For anyone who is not fundamentally celibate, that amounts to a same lifetime anathema as has practical given 1983. Then as now, scholarship is not a issue; a blood of HIV-negative happy organisation who are in monogamous relationships, or of those who use usually protected sex, is as protected to infuse as any nun’s, even if they have sex 365 days a year. So because would an organisation in unfortunate need of donors reject it? What’s unequivocally going on is a same gay-sex fear and informative stereotyping that sensitive a strange decision, usually now though AIDS violence to forgive it. Basically, a FDA does not trust happy organisation to news their HIV-status and passionate activity honestly, even yet they trust everybody else to do so. That’s an advance? we elite it when they suspicion we were only sick, not liars.

Gay advocacy organisation Lambda Legal’s HIV plan head, Scott Schoettes, questioned a scholarship behind a ban:

This is a step in a right direction, yet blood concession routine should be formed on stream systematic believe and experience, not ungrounded fear, generalizations and stereotypes. Merely changing a parameters of this old-fashioned routine does not change a underlying discriminatory nature, discharge a disastrous and stigmatizing effects, nor renovate it into a routine formed on stream systematic and medical knowledge.

Within 45 days of exposure, now compulsory blood concession contrast detects all famous critical blood-borne pathogens, including HIV. Therefore, a deferral of some-more than dual months—for anyone—is not required and does not noticeably raise a reserve of a blood supply. Furthermore, donor deferrals should be formed wholly on a control of a intensity donor and not on passionate orientation, gender temperament or a viewed health standing or risk factors of a donor’s passionate partners.

The ACLU’s Ian Thompson also condemned a ban:

The FDA’s offer contingency be seen as partial of an ongoing routine and not an finish point. The existence for many happy and bisexual organisation – including those in committed, monogamous relations – is that this offer will continue to duty as a de facto lifetime ban. Criteria for final blood donor eligibility should be formed on science, not outdated, discriminatory stereotypes and assumptions.

And Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that a FDA’s idea is behind a times, even among a peers:

[A]s we’ve schooled over a final 31 years, there’s really small reason behind a FDA’s gay-related policies. The American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, a American Association of Blood Banks, and a American Medical Association have all changed on and now support scrapping a anathema altogether. But a FDA stays trapped in a 1980s—terrified of happy organisation and their diseased, strange ways. Perhaps in another 31 years, we’ll see a FDA pierce to a sensible, nondiscriminatory rule. For now, we’re stranded with this embarrassing, unscientific half-measure.

About admin

Scroll To Top