C’mon. You present a best case scenario versus a worse case scenario. All other things being equal you have a greater chance of contracting a disease via homosexual sex versus hetero. Yes, if all of your partners are disease free you are in the clear, but there’s no guarantee of that and just perusing this message board it’s pretty plain that infidelity and sexual indiscretions are not alien to people of any sexual persuasion.
Again, perhaps the FDA is overreacting, I just don’t see this as clear cut evidence of their having a gay bias.
I did a little googling and found out that this ban isn’t a new idea, the proposal for it goes back to at least 1999.
Perhaps he/she should have said that “the incidence of AIDS is higher among male homosexuals than heterosexuals.” (Of course, the incidence is also higher among African-Americans than other ethnic groups, including caucasians. Don’t see the FDA banning them, though…)
And it is true that anal sex poses a greater risk than vaginal.
Are you saying that you will lie during sperm donation? I find the idea of turning away gay men utterly preposterous, but I am disgusted by your comment. I know people who’ve used donor insemination, and by lying about anything on the form, you are betraying their trust.
Back to the OP:
At first I suspected that the folks involved in this decision-making process were chuckling about the fact that they were keeping “gay genes” out of future generations. But then I realized they probably don’t believe in anything that would imply “turning gay” is not a choice.
Actually, I hadn’t anticipated the need to donate sperm anymore. It was something I’d done a couple of times through the school year to make ends meet sometimes.
But as for blood, yes. It is screened and tested just as heterosexual blood is screened and tested. Further; I, myself, am tested regularly, and don’t engage in drugs, unsafe sex, or promiscuity. Given that the blood is put through the same stringent tests as hetero-blood, and given that I am a universal donor, I can’t say I much care that the corporation doesn’t want my blood-- I care more that the people in need NEED my blood. I’ve consulted with my doctor, who has also advised me that I am just as safe to give as anyone else.
Obviously it’s because the gays have convinced everyone that there’s some kind of gay gene.
Since gay sex is a dead end (so to speak) in terms of passing on one’s genes, they have devised the stratagem of donating sperm as an end run (so to speak) around this problem so they can produce A WHOLE NEW GAY GENERATION.
Seems like some right-thinking person has figured out this nefarious plan and taken appropriate action.
(And in case anyone has any doubt about the above post, )
ARRGGH! I was working on my reply, had cites, what I feel were carefully worded arguments, etc., but a couple of windows I opened froze and it slowed my whole computer down so I decided to shut them down (which, as windows users know, means you shut down ALL windows including the one I was typing my response in). I right-clicked and copied my text, but, since I just reinstalled my OS and recent updates and hadn’t reinstalled Word yet, I had no place to put it. But I figured, no biggie, it should be safe just being copied. Well, I guess not because it’s freaking gone. I swear, my next computer is going to be a Mac, and I hope Bill Gates reads this because his product sucks.
I will have responses for comments from chique and leander just as soon as I get Word reinstalled and I type all my crap up again.
Ok. I just want to make sure that you realize I don’t want into get into a huge, full-blown, cite-laden argument about this.
The FDA came out with these guidelines in the 80s, when AIDS first made its way into the public consciousness, “innocent” people were infected with the virus via transfusions, and while Reagan was president. As a result, the Red Cross caught A Lot Of Flak - more, even, than with the more recent Liberty Fund brouhaha. I know there are those who disagree, but the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement strives to be as non-political as possible.* I think in its endeavour to remain neutral the ARC’s right knee kicked up and smacked itself in the head.
While the grant has since ended, the National Institutes of Health has, for some time and via the Red Cross, funded AIDS/HIV education. While not diametrically opposed to the blood bank, there is internal conflict over the guidelines. Until the FDA (by whose rules we must abide) alters its decision, however, the American Red Cross is bound by those rules.
Sucks, but there it is, at least for us. I hope, eventually, that the FDA will catch a clue, but as long as politicians have their fingers in the scientific pie I think many are out of luck.
I would like to note that each Movement’s rules govern blood donation. From perusing other Movement’s websites I see a few differences. The British Red Cross doesn’t mention blood donations on its website at all, for instance. And the Australian rules are quite different from ours: no pads, more blood, more action…
*From the fundamental principles: The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, born of a desire to bring assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the battlefield, endeavours, in its international and national capacity, to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found…it makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions…In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature…The Movement is independent. The National Societies, while auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of their governments and subject to the laws of their respective countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with the principles of the Movement.
If I may speculate on the part of the FDA, the reason why there isn’t a ban or restriction on African Americans in spite of their having a higher HIV rate than the general population is that there are behaviors that increase the risk of HIV that are more common among African Americans than among the general population (higher needle-administered drug usage rates, a lower usage of condoms, higher prison rates than the general population*, and a greater stigma attached to being gay that likely precludes any gay blacks from seeking out pertinent knowledge about the risks of homosexual activity as opposed to hetero). So considering the above it is risky behavior more common among blacks as opposed to simply being black that is the cause for the increased HIV rates, and since the tests for being a sperm donor are administered on an individual basis they will hopefully weed out any blacks (or members of any other ethnic group) who engage in risky behavior.
If you consider the above you can see why it wouldn’t make sense to ban or restrict African-American sperm donations because the “ban against homosexuals” isn’t technically against homosexuals, it’s against people who have engaged in homosexual activity in the last five years. While this might seem to be splitting hairs it is an important distinction because the circumstances that would prohibit an individual from donating are based primarily upon behavior and leaves room for being a member of any given ethnic or social group. IOW, you can be gay and donate, you just can’t be homosexually active.
Chique, I actually didn’t have cites for my response to you, so you lucked out. If you think about what I said about the increased rates of disease for those who have engaged in homosexual activity and then consider that no tests are 100% for picking up potential diseases can you then see why I think there can be a logically plausible basis for restricting or prohibiting blood donations from homosexuals? Straight sex as opposed to gay sex has a much lower chance of transmitting a disease, and I would speculate that that is the motivation for only a year ban compared to a lifetime one, regardless of your partners sexual histories.
There might be evidence against my position, I haven’t seen any in my brief research on this subject and my overall knowledge is admittedly a bit sparse, but then again I haven’t seen anything in this thread to counter my position. You mention HIV/AIDS research and conflicting guidelines, but overall you were a bit vague. Could you expand on that? I’m genuinely curious.
Changing gears, reading this thread and working on my response has given me food for thought. I reconsidered Otto’s post and can see an argument for banning or restricting sperm or blood donations from heterosexuals who have a promiscuous sexual history. Perhaps there should be a question on the forms for people who have had a certain number of partners in the last several years, regardless of sexual orientation, if sexual history is indeed that important.
Also, it occurred to me that as far as sperm bank donations go they should probably give the prospective mothers more leeway in their decision about the importance of the sexual history of the sperm donor as the mother will be the one who has the most important authority in determining what is an acceptable risk in the future health of their (hopeful) child, and the FDA’s intervention in this light can be seen as being Big Brotherish. However I can also see the side of the FDA in that it is their responsibility to watch out for the health of the public, and that includes the health of the public not yet born. Overall I think I need to give more thought to this issue, but regardless which of the two positions is correct I still don’t see a gay bias in evidence. Please note, this paragraph only applies to sperm donation and not blood donation (where recipients might not be in any condition to enquire about the donor’s history).
OTOH, I can see the possibility that the persecution that homosexuals have historically experienced might have some people seeing malicious motivations that aren’t actually there for a change (then again, I’m a straight white male, one of the least persecuted groups in history, and I might be a bit obtuse as a result, no sarcasm intended). I’m not trying to get anyone’s goat with this question, but looking at some of the venom in this thread I wonder if everyone has considered whether or not people’s personal experiences and feelings might be clouding their judgment and keeping them from seeing motives on behalf of the FDA that are less than sinister. Again, I admit to not being an expert on this subject and I might just be naive in this instance.
[sub]*I actually found a cite that specifically mentioned prison time as being a factor in the increased HIV rates found among African-Americans. I was going to include it, but while retyping my original post I decided that I didn’t need it, in part because it stated that they weren’t entirely sure of the causation between the two. I also had a separate link to a sperm bank FAQ about the questions asked of potential sperm donors, but again, I figured that it wasn’t needed. If anybody is curious I will gladly provide the links, but you can probably find out what I’m referring to with a little googling.[/sub]
The bolded bit was on purpose, because I’m not all up on this, either - I’m more than willing to be corrected on the following, which I’ve cobbled togther from conversations with our AIDS/HIV person, the bloodmobile nurses, and remembrances of news articles past.
HIV/AIDS first reared its ugly head and blood donees started popping positive for the disease. Research was in its infancy and it was speculated that HIV could lie dormant for years before it could be spotted and (in the public mind, at least) this was “the gay disease”. This was when those rules I quoted above were promulgated.
In the years since science has come up with quicker, more accurate tests for HIV. As a result of the tainted blood scandal, ARC spent billions of dollars building a state-of-the-art testing facility, and continues to spend millions collecting, transporting, testing, and distributing blood, tissue, and blood products.
But that’s just the Red Cross. There are hundreds of places willing to play vampire for blood and plasma, and some will pay for it. I don’t know anything about those other places, and I don’t know if they spend as much time and money as ARC does to test samples for problems.
Blood’s a precious commodity, y’know? It’s life. The FDA knows that any lessening of blood safety standards would have John Q. Public up in arms, and it’s going to take a long time and a lot more research before they even think of changing their stupid rules - and they are stupid and arbitrary. But there’s no way ARC is going to lower its standards before the FDA does.
Chique, I realized that we might be talking past each other. Is your criticism that the FDA is prohibiting donations from viable donors due to what you feel is an unreasonable fear or do you feel that the FDA has a gay bias? Answering that might change my responses to your posts. I’m gonna assume the latter and trust you to correct me if I’m wrong. If it’s the former I think that the ethics concerning this debate can change dramatically.
But I still don’t see this as evidence of a gay bias. If the FDA has prohibitions against the donation of blood from people who are homosexually active and these prohibitions are based upon antiquated safeguards taken in the eighties that they are hesitant to repeal because of fear of public backlash there doesn’t seem to me to be an automatic equation between the refusal to repeal the safeguards and an anti-gay bias.
The fear of a backlash could be based in altruism, however misguided, that there will be a decrease in donations due to a public perception of poor management of donation regulations. They could possibly be weighing the loss of prospective donations versus the influx of new donations from previously banned groups.
OTOH, the fear of backlash could be based upon something more selfish, that of loss of prestige. If what you are saying about the safety of potential donors that have been tested is true and it’s the fear of public backlash upon the careers or reputations of those in the FDA who approve donations from people who are homosexually active that influences decisions, then any gay bias among those in the FDA who make such decisions is still irrelevant. In this case they would be basing their decision upon what is best for them as opposed to the public.
To use an analogy, imagine that a father and son are fishing and the boat tips over. The father can hold onto the capsized boat but only if he doesn’t hold onto his son as well. If the father chooses to let the son drown to save his own life he doesn’t have an anti-son or family bias, he’s just a selfish bastard. If what you’re saying about the fear of backlash in the FDA is true then a reasonable proximate to my example is the fear of personal loss due to an approval of donations from homosexually active persons. However reprehensible this scenario might be it still doesn’t qualify as an anti-gay bias.
We don’t really need to play a guessing game about the FDA’s motivations. The fact is that they are behaving in a manner that is stupid and for pratical purposes indistinguishable from an anti-gay bias. Perhaps they ARE trying to be diplomatic, but considering they are stopping willing people from donating blood and potentially saving lives, it’s stupid to cater to bigotry.
The first clue was a sudden attraction to chiffon. Then it progressed to the lisping thing. The Thells Thea Thells by the Theathore, and that sort of thing.
Mental image of a Marine Mammal in glasses & white lab coat, scribbling note on a clipboard, while electrodes are hooked up to an extra from “Cabaret”.
What is the transmission rate from HIV+ men to their offspring?
IANABiologist but I do remember reading that sperm is basically nothing but a bit of DNA and some tools for mobility. It has no mitochondria or any other non-essential bits, correct? Can sperm even carry the HIV virus?
)
If you think about what I said about the increased rates of disease for those who have engaged in homosexual activity and then consider that no tests are 100% for picking up potential diseases can you then see why I think there can be a logically plausible basis for restricting or prohibiting blood donations from homosexuals? Straight sex as opposed to gay sex has a much lower chance of transmitting a disease, and I would speculate that that is the motivation for only a year ban compared to a lifetime one, regardless of your partners sexual histories.
