First off, I'd like to say that I'm incredibly excited to say that this is the one hundredth post to this blog, and it seems like a fitting time for implementing a new format. To kick off the first of our Current Events weeks, I'm going to talk about an issue that sort of ties into last week's topic of discrimination that I couldn't figure out how to bring up in my post, so I'm gonna ramble a bit about it here: blood donation and the non-heterosexual male.
For those of you that don't know, one of the FDA's current policies (originally enacted in 1985, back before we really understood what AIDS was or how it spread) for donated blood is that if you are a male that has had sexual contact with another male even once since 1977, you are not allowed to donate blood. If you are a female that has had sexual contact with a male that has had sexual contact with another male even once since 1977, you are not allowed to donate blood for one year after last exposure. This issue is one that carries a lot of weight for me on a personal level, so perhaps I should start with explaining my background with it.
I've been donating blood with a semi-large group of my friends fairly regularly since December 2009. Usually the majority of us are able to give, but there's almost always at least one of us that can't. Ever since they eliminated the maximum pulse requirement, that one person has never been me. I'm also one of the least prone in our group to serious problems with feeling ill afterward. My blood type is O+, which means that my red cells can go to anyone that has an Rh positive blood type. All things considered, I'm a pretty great blood donor.
I'm also bisexual. I've yet to ever be in a sexual relationship with another guy (for reasons that are not to be discussed on this blog), but if I were in that position... I'm not really sure what I'd do. Actually, I know exactly what I'd do. I'd lie to the blood donor center. I'd also invite my theoretical boyfriend to come give blood with me the next time I went.
Now, I'm not going to pretend that MSMs aren't at a somewhat higher risk than straight guys for contracting HIV. That being said, I'm pretty sure that the difference between being a slut that'll fuck anything with a pulse and opposite-sex sex organs and having sex only in the context of a committed relationship is far more significant for determining risk than sexual orientation.
I can understand why the fear of AIDS and lack of understanding led to the creation of this ban on MSM blood donors, but the fact that it exists in this day and age is utterly ridiculous. I have a lot of facts from the American Red Cross about blood donation and why we need more people doing it, but the most striking is that under 38% of the population is eligible to give blood, and the fact of the matter is that most people simply don't.
I think that Spain and Italy have the right idea on this. As stated in the article, their policies prevent donation if you've had more than one sex partner in the past six months, regardless of sexual orientation. This makes much more sense, and with how much more reliable HIV tests are today, there's no real reason to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Giving up the opportunity for perfectly healthy blood because of a homophobic policy is just... absurd.
As a final note, I wholeheartedly encourage everybody reading to head over to their nearest blood donor center and go through the screening process to try to give blood. I can't stand needles, and this kept me from trying to give blood for a while, but upon finally being convinced that it was worth trying once, I found that it wasn't that bad. You don't have to look at the needle when it goes in, it doesn't hurt, it's over before you know it, there are rarely any adverse effects unless you fail to follow the instructions given, and you get free cookies and juice.
...Seriously, who doesn't love free cookies and juice?
No comments:
Post a Comment