I came out as bisexual during the end of my senior year of high school. Since that time, I’ve followed various aspects of the marriage equality debate within the state and the nation as well. Like many other students, I have often seen the Red Cross signage across our campus and I have a strong desire to donate blood to individuals in need.
I was born three months premature and I was the only survivor from a triplet birth. Blood transfusions enabled me to survive. I would like nothing more than to help a child or any sick individual in need of a blood donation. However, I cannot.
One simple question stands between me and a blood donation: “From 1977 to present, have you had sexual contact with another male, even once?” I, along with other gay and bisexual men, am in violation of this rule.
Each and every time I walk by a blood donation sign on campus I am reminded that I am of a minority. I am different. I am excluded from partaking in an important event due to an immutable characteristic and an essential aspect of my being.
The FDA classifies gay men as high-risk donors, which places in the same category as IV drug users. Even with an immaculate bill of health, a gay man is still viewed as a greater threat to the blood supply than a straight male who has gonorrhea, syphilis or chlamydia. Straight men can even donate blood as soon as twelve months after admitting to sleeping with a prostitute.
Much of this fear dates back to the AIDS crisis of the 1980s. However, there have been incredible advancements in the field of HIV detection since that time and the virus can now be detected with a great deal of accuracy.
With this information in mind I would respectfully ask the University of Massachusetts administration and the campus community at large to reconsider allowing blood donations on campus. The policies of the FDA are severely outdated and perpetuate the notion that gay men are less healthy or capable of donating blood than their straight peers. To be blunt, this policy is discriminatory.
Despite these facts I still believe blood drives to be an incredibly positive and admirable endeavor. My goal is not to deny blood to individuals in need but to merely call attention to an egregious and highly illogical policy. Only through forceful and meaningful action can we end this policy and create a society in which every person is treated with the respect, tolerance and dignity they so rightly deserve.
Anthony Maddaleni
Mike • Apr 10, 2014 at 12:04 am
Classic, accuse the dissent of prejudice. All I can say is you don’t know how wrong you are.
By only stands to benefit the red cross, I meant that allowing more donors (if safe) could only be beneficial to their cause.
Your experience is largely irrelevent. Im glad blood donations saved your life… so your answer to you being prohibited from donating blood is to deny the red cross that many more units of blood? Thats completely illogical. The system exists for one purpose: to save lives. You want to potentially save fewer lives in order to be able to feel better about yourself. It seems to me a better path to take would be to lobby the ARC on the reasons as to why the benefits would outweigh the risks in accepting blood from the MSM population, not work to deny them blood because you cant get your free cookies too.
Having any strangers blood makes me personally uncomfortable… if in fact the risk is deemed worth the rewards in accepting blood from the MSM group (which the CDC shows has an over represented instance of HIV, though this may be insignificant) than I have no problem with the ARC accepting blood from gay and bisexual men. And no, I have no problem with gay men donating blood if it is in fact the case the risk factor is insignificant. I dont care who or whats blood is used to save a life either.
My problem was not with gay men donating blood, it was with you advocating that the ARC is denied much needed blood to prove your point that you are upset that you cant donate blood under their rules… they arent getting blood from as many possible donors therefore we should give them even less blood which is used to save peoples lives… some logic right there.
It must be because Im prejudice though…
Anthony • Apr 7, 2014 at 5:52 pm
Dear Mike,
I initially resolved not to comment upon your original post. I realize that publishing an article opens one up to criticism. However, it’s your interesting word choices that compelled me to do this. First off, the reason I desire to donate blood has nothing to do with “feeling good about myself.” As I stated in the article, I was the sole survivor from a triplet birth and blood donations allowed me to survive. That is why I want to donate, to give back to others. Secondly, your claim that discriminating against gay men “only seeks to benefit the red cross” is interesting. And by interesting, I mean completely absurd. Gay men are now allowed to donate blood in countries such as Canada, South Africa, Australia and Japan. Clearly, if these countries have found sufficient evidence to overturn the ban on gay men donating blood, than why is the U.S. lagging behind? Furthermore the FDA has stated that the risk of contracting HIV from a unit of blood is one in 2 million (fda.gov “blood donations from MSM”). It seems to me, Mike, that you’re letting your own personal prejudices get in the way of objective reasoning. The mere fact that one is gay precludes them from giving blood. This question is not considered in light of an individual’s number of sexual partners or if he practices safe sex regularly. Why don’t you just come out and say that it simply makes you personally uncomfortable for gay men to donate blood? It might help improve your argument. Either that or try and come up with some more persuasive arguments please.
Mike • Apr 3, 2014 at 8:19 pm
Also worth pointing out that gay men remain overly represented as an HIV positive group. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html
A cost benefit analysis may mean that unfortunately it is not worth the risk to accept donations from the “MSM” group. It’s not personal, or “anti-gay,” it may in fact be a calculated decision.
Regardless, your call to short the red-cross from needed blood to prove a point is selfish and foolish.
Mike
SHerlitz • Apr 2, 2014 at 3:24 pm
Denying blood to those who desperately need it is an extremely poor way to get the lifetime ban on donations from gay men lifted. The Red Cross just follows the rules as outlined by the FDA, and banning blood drives on campus would in no way affect the FDA at all.
Mike • Apr 1, 2014 at 12:20 am
Calling attention to an issue by denying blood to those in need is exactly what you are advocating doing. While a dated policy may need to be looked at, it only stands to benefit the Red Cross. You being disallowed from donating may in fact be detrimental to their cause, but the way you wrote this letter is completely illogical. The blood drive does not exist to allow you to feel good about yourself, it exists so others may live. You’re way off the mark.
Mike