Posted on 03/13/2005 3:16:21 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
I AM writing in response to a Sunday News editorial, "Education lacking: UNH Senate AIDS issue shows it," that was published Feb. 27. As the author of the UNH Senate Resolution that the editorial referred to, I feel obligated to respond and clear up some of the apparent confusion among the editorial staff.
The current FDA regulation banning any man who has had sex with another man at any time since 1977 from donating blood were instituted in the early 1980s as a precaution against the spread of the HIV virus and AIDS through the blood supply. It was the correct decision at the time. In the climate of fear and uncertainty about this deadly infection, the authorities had no other choice but to err on the side of safety.
Today, however, the scientific knowledge and understanding of HIV and how it spreads has advanced. The FDA policy of banning sexually active gay men for life from donating blood is not backed up by science. There is no scientific, medical or ethical justification for the ban.
What once seemed like a necessary precaution has become a discriminatory practice perpetuating the bigotry and prejudice that sexually active gay men are somehow a danger and a threat to the rest of society. Add to this that it is medically counterproductive at a time when the country is facing increasing threats from blood shortages.
Contrary to what was stated in the editorial, the Red Cross is the only major blood donation organization to oppose any change in the FDA policy. In fact, the largest blood donation organization in the country, America's Blood Centers, as well as the American Association of Blood Banks, support changing the current policy. With today's effective screening procedures of blood donors and testing of all donated blood, every major blood donor organization in the country, except for the Red Cross, supports a change in policy to a one-year deferral as opposed to a lifetime ban, and some scientists advocate for a two-week deferral for male homosexual blood donors.
FDA statistics estimate that approximately 10 units of tainted blood slip through the blood banks each year, potentially infecting one to two people per year. If the FDA changed its policy to a one-year deferral on men who have had sex with another man since 1977, the FDA predicts that over 62,300 more men would donate blood, while an additional three units of tainted blood would slip through the blood supply.
If 10 units of blood potentially infects one to two people per year, then 13 units would potentially infect one to three people, while over 176,000 more people would potentially be protected from the dangers of blood shortages.
If the FDA truly wanted the safest blood supply possible, it would require all donors to be asked about safe sex practices. The real high risk factor for contracting HIV, gay or straight, is unsafe sex.
Being gay and having safe homosexual sex does not put you at any more risk of HIV than being straight and having safe heterosexual sex. With the current policy, a straight man can have unsafe sex with dozens of women and still donate blood, while a gay man who has had sex with a monogamous partner just once in the past 28 years can never give blood.
The Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire supports scientifically based filters on blood donation to make the blood banks as safe as possible, while eliminating practices that are discriminatory and counterproductive.
The editorial accused me of pushing a gay agenda. Even though this issue does affect gay people, it is an issue of fundamental civil rights and sensible health policies. That is not a gay agenda but an American agenda. It is for everyone who needed blood but couldn't get it because the Red Cross supports turning away thousands of perfectly healthy donors at their doors just because the donors have engaged in gay sex.
Being gay and having safe homosexual sex does not put you at any more risk of HIV than being straight and having safe heterosexual sex.
Get off your soapbox and enter the reality world. Heterosexuals DO NOT want blood from homosexuals. I say again, DO NOT want blood from homosexuals. You may start your own blood bank but we don't want the heterosexual blood banks contamintated.
By definition, college students are sophomoric and advocate silly things.
That being said, I'm all in favor of gays donating blood.
So long as it's earmarked for receipt by other homosexuals.
"Shhhhhhhhhh...the emperor's not naked...he's just not wearing any clothes."
Even though this issue does affect gay people, it is an issue of fundamental civil rights and sensible health policies.
I can't believe civil rights of homosexual men have ANYTHING to do with the right of a patient to expect HIV free blood. Anyone who argues this is arguing for murder.
I'm willing to bet homosexuals would be too afraid to get blood from their own blood bank. And I'm sure the writer here wouldn't want pure homosexual blood either.
Presumed Hypocrite Alert!
I damn sure don't want any of their blood, or want it for My Kids or Grandkids. Better to die fast, for lack of a transfusion, than to rot away slowly, afraid to even touch the Folks You love. If any of Mine ever got a contaminated transfusion, I don't reckon I could rest, until I had eliminated as many possible sources, as is possible!
This could mean that I am not a good Christian, but, I believe that some parts of vengeance are Mine! If I have to go to Hell, to keep My Kids and Grandkids out of it, sounds like a deal, to Me!
WTF??? Helloooo! They do that already!
Maybe they should allow people who have visited the UK over the past 10 years to donate blood. Currently people who have been to the UK are not allowed to donate because they might have been exposed to Mad Cow disease.
Ridiculous! Totally ignores the obvious difference in particular practices and the different kind of body tissue involved. In the interest of good taste, I will not elaborate.
Let's endanger everyone so we don't offend anyone. Sheesh.
This is simply scary logic. It reminds me of a movie I had to see in English class my sophomore year in high school, called The Lottery.
Where one of the town's people is sacrificed (stoned to death) each year for the good of the people...i.e. "convoluted reasoning".
Here, this genius thinks it's OK to risk one more person's health for the benefit of others. It's sick logic, and all so those who practice perversion can pretend to be normal.
I read the article starting this thread.
I finish reading the article starting this thread.
I scroll up, thinking this must be from the Onion.
No, not from the Onion.
I click on the link, thinking this HAS to be written with 'tongue in cheek'.
AWWWW, I just went and posted an insensitive thought.
But I was wrong about the Onion part.
I guess I can't always be 'correct'.
Ypur tyicl self absorbed scientificaly flawed demand from a group that seeks to force it's lifestyle into the Mainstream at any cost. So far, thanks to weak Courts and Politicians, they appear to be succeeding. I meean Jeeez, it's now PC to strut this non-sense
I have donated two-three times a year for ten years. The ARC likes my B negative as its kind of rare. I donate knowing nothing in my system will likely harm anyone who gets my blood or plasma. Can these men say the same ?
Heterosexual std's are much easier to deal with than AIDS.
Here here! Reading you loud and clear. The proof is in the pudding. Medical personnel didn't start wearing gloves until the AIDS explosion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.