Just for the Halibut: FDA Says Nay to Gays

It would be obvious to say that 2012’s America is more knowledgeable in terms of disease research than pre-21st century America. It could also be said that the American public  is more open and accepting to the growing homosexual demographic. However, a ban continues to exist on homosexual blood donations and I am not entirely sure why.

Since the 1970s, males who have engaged in sexual activity with other males have been indefinitely deferred from donating blood. Females are not allowed to donate until a year after the last exposure of same-sex intercourse.

The ban was initially enacted in response to the public paranoia that the raging Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) pandemic and types of hepatitis were caused solely by same-sex intercourse. Its purpose was to reassure Americans that they would not wake up from a surgery with a disease that hitchhiked from a blood bag. Science has since then disproved these beliefs. Diseases transmitted through blood transfusions and sexual acts can be spread by heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, yet homosexuals alone are denied donor eligibility.

Despite refutation, on June 11 of 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability voted against recommending a change to the FDA policy of a lifetime deferral for men who have sex with other men, according to the American Red Cross’ online site. Note that 2010 was only two years ago, although the mind set is reminiscent of several generations past.

This mind set not only suggests that homophobia persists within the government, which I perceive as largely influenced by religious values that have no business influencing federal policies, but could also indirectly lead to many deaths. There is a constant demand for blood and the LGBT community is a substantial demographic that is a viable source for it. As the ban is solely supported  by debunked beliefs that homosexuals are of higher-risk for diseases, it can only be assumed that the ban remains due to discrimination. Thus, this ban prevents them from donating blood apparently just because—well—just because they are gay.

Shedding additional light on the ban’s stubborn irrationality is its distinction between men and women. Although men are banned indefinitely, women are banned only for a year since their last exposure to  homosexual intercourse. Even by way of the devil’s advocate, I can see no logical reason behind such a distinction. Women are just as capable of transmitting diseases, yet a lifetime ban is specific only to men.

This ban is archaic and should go the way of archaic things: into the hypothetical trash bin. There is nothing that sets a homosexual person apart from a heterosexual person biologically. The only difference between my blood and a healthy gay man’s blood would be that I am O-positive and he might be AB-negative. Even so, his chances of saving a life are as good as mine.