Posted on 11/28/2014 12:59:23 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Advisers for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will meet next week to decide whether gay men should be allowed to donate blood, the agency’s biggest step yet toward changing the 30-year-old prohibition.
If the FDA accepts the recommendation from its advisory board, it would roll back a policy that has faced mounting criticism from LGBT advocates and some members of Congress for more than four years.
“We’ve got the ball rolling. I feel like this is a tide-turning vote,” said Ryan James Yezak, an LGBT activist who founded the National Gay Blood Drive and will speak at next week’s meeting. “There’s been a lot of feet dragging and I think they’re realizing it now.”
Reconsidering the policy will be the first agenda item for the Advisory Blood Products Advisory Committee when it meets Dec. 2
Critics of the ban, which was enacted during the national AIDS epidemic in 1983 and was last updated in 1992, say it ignores mounds of scientific evidence concluding that blood donations pose no risk than the greater public if properly screened.
Groups such as the American Red Cross and America’s Blood Centers voiced support for the policy change this month, calling the ban “medically and scientifically unwarranted.” The American Medical Association voted to end the ban last summer.
“The public health rationale for this ban has kind of been packed away,” said Glenn Cohen, a medical ethics professor at Harvard Law School who criticized the ban in an article recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Members of Congress have also thrown in their support, led by those in the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus.
Gay rights groups are also increasingly targeting the policy, bolstered by recent victories like the military eliminating its “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy and the Supreme Court striking down major portions of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Fighting the ban on blood donations is a logical next step for their advocacy, Cohen said.
“It’s a little crazy that you can shed blood for your country, but you can’t donate blood to another human being,” he added.
Some advocates say that people are surprised to hear the policy still exists despite the decades of advances in research.
Richard Dedor, an author and speaker who is gay, remembers trying to donate bone marrow about 18 months ago to help a family friend.
As he was filling out the form, he was shocked when he read a question asking if he had had sex with men.
“I sat there for a second and thought, should I be honest, or should I lie?” he recalled.
He said he decided to answer the question honestly, and realized then that he would get involved in the fight to strike down the ban.
“Others in my exact same situation do lie because they believe so vehemently that they have the right — forget the right, the ability — to keep the blood supply and the bone marrow supply safe,” he said. “We have the ability to help save lives.”
The FDA says that it still asks about men who have sex with men because no other questions are able to identify people with same risks to sexually transmitted infections, like HIV.
“In the future, improved questionnaires may be helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without evidence,” according to the agency’s website.
The FDA is not compelled to follow the recommendation from its advisory group, which includes more than a dozen top scientists from across the country – though it often does.
“Following deliberations taking into consideration the available evidence, the FDA will issue revised guidance, if appropriate,” a spokeswoman Jennifer Rodriguez wrote in a statement, though she declined to provide details about who would make the decision or when that could happen.
Members of the advisory committee did not return requests for comment.
A new FDA policy would likely not completely eliminate the ban, instead allowing men to donate only if they have not had sex with another man for one year.
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) said that a policy with a one-year deferral would be “still discriminatory” and he hopes the ban will be reversed in full.
"I am encouraged by the continuation of this conversation to change current, outdated policies, which will bring equality for the LGBT community while still protecting the U.S. blood supply,” he wrote in a statement to The Hill.
Yessak, who founded the National Gay Blood Drive, said he believes a complete elimination of the ban is “only a matter of time.”
He pointed to accumulating pressure he’s seen against the policy. Over the last two years, participation has tripled for his blood drive, where gay men show up with “proxies” who donate in their place.
“This is really big,” he said. “It’s a huge step, but there’s a lot more work to do.”
That’s not creepy.
The likelihood of a false negative is high shortly after one has contracted HIV.
No it’s not. As was earlier mentioned. We should set up blood banks for those with HIV. How much can HIV blood hurt if you already have HIV anyways.
This is wrong, in every way possible.
The FDA might lift it, but I’m sure the Red Cross and other agencies will still be loathe to accept blood from men who are active homosexuals. Ryan White contracted AIDS from having received tainted blood in his treatments for hemophilia. Will the Red Cross and other agencies subject themselves to lawsuits in an effort to placate homosexual men?
And, people TRUST the FDA????
A few homosexuals believe there’s a cure for HIV that would be released if enough straight people would just contract HIV.
Since the blood supply is now screened for HIV antibodies & antigens, the chance of getting HIV from blood is very small. Blood would get more expensive because more unusable blood would have to be processed.
EXACTLY. If they don’t let people who lived in Europe during the 1980s give blood — I am BANNED FOR LIFE as are you — they shouldn’t take blood from people SOLELY BECAUSE THEY ENGAGE IN ANAL SEX.
I can’t speak for you, lol, but I wasn’t doing that when I lived in Switzerland. Do you realize, idiots, that people give blood in Germany and Switzerland, and they would accept our blood too??? Stupidest rule I ever heard.
I am not sure about germany but in Switzerland they do not import beef from the UK. Nor did I travel to the UK. Stupid.
Good! all the gay mens blood should be put aside for the FDA employees and thier families
...but if you sell raw milk we will kick down your door, shoot your dog and burn the motherf*cker down.
A bleeping men.
My Godson died of AIDS from a blood transfusion in San Francisco way back in 1984.
That says it all as far as I’m concerned.
.
You guys answered my questions. Which was don’t they actually test the blood for diseases after it is donated?
Thankfully they do. I donate four or five times a year. Not just out of altruistic philanthropic concern for my fellow man but because I have high iron in my blood. The fact that it helps others as well Makes me feel good. There is something to be said for that and it does feel nice to help others.
But this is just a case of the squeaky wheel and the PC police screaming and yelling so much that they get their way.
When I saw that question as I was preparing for my first blood donation for years ago: “are you a man and have you ever had sex with a man even once”...
My first thought was this question will not last long in the PC activist world. It’s just a matter of time.
Why doesn’t the gay community build their own hospital where they can take pride in. They can build 57 hospitals, one in each State.
Then, I wonder how many gays would go to a gay hospital.
“It’s a little crazy that you can shed blood for your country, but you can’t donate blood to another human being,” he added.
Insanity.
Let them give their blood to each other.
If anyone gets infected as a result of this change in policy, the MSM will suppress the information. To add insult to injury, the infected person will be called a crazy homophobe.
“It’s a little crazy that you can shed blood for your country, but you can’t donate blood to another human being,” he added.
Does this jack of fools even know what it means to donate blood? Does he think it means putting it in a carryall for someone to take home and use later for garden fertilizer? Does he get it goes inside another person’s body?
Next up, screeches about right to privacy and intolerance of the sexually indiscriminate.
I’ll bet that a poll of gay men and women would show that the majority would not knowingly want blood from a gay male donor.
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.