Red Cross Gay Blood Ban Back in the News

| | Comments (6)

As I get older, one of the things that I’ve trimmed out of my life is all the BS that happens over time. For example, I no longer have friends who were only friends who take advantage of me for being such a nice guy. It’s true, I have a big heart for people in need. You would be surprised at just how many people are out there who want to take advantage of that.

I had a friend once who wrote me a very abusive letter. He was feeling that I was making light of a relationship he was having with his new female friend (she had dumped him once before) and now he was getting back with her. Instead of just telling me how he was feeling, he started his instant message to me this way, “You fucking asshole.” I was absolutely shocked. I asked him, “Are you ok?” I honestly had no idea why he was so pissed at me or why such harsh language. Well, it went down hill from there. He ended the message by saying, “I don’t want you in my life any longer.” My reply, “ok. Goodbye. Have a nice life.” That was all I said and those were our last words. I never looked back and I have never regretted it. That was six years ago.

I had come to the conclusion that I don’t need people in my life who pull that kind of crap with me. This happened almost six years ago. Why did I have that reaction? Because when I was in my early twenties, Kent and I had a friend who did exactly the same thing to me. I can’t tell you how many times I went home crying from having hurt feelings by something very caustic this person said to me. That was almost thirty years ago. I vowed that I would never let anyone treat me that way again.

Fast forward to what happened six years ago, and you can probably understand why I had that reaction. I just won’t allow people to give me emotional turmoil anymore.

Over time, I’ve also applied this to other areas of my life. I am no longer willing to be second rate at anything. This applies to being able to have marriage for me and my partner, having gay citizens being able to serve openly in the military, and other aspects of life that are unfair and wrong.

You may ask, what can I do about all the injustices in life? The answer is simple. Don’t support the injustices in life. That is what you, as an individual, have absolute control over. Use that!

Example: Kent mentioned an Internet service provider this afternoon as a company I may want to move this website too. My very first question was, “Where are they located?” We found out they are located in Michigan. Kent asked, “They are ok, aren’t they?” I answered, “Nope. Michigan just passed a constitutional amendment against gay marriage and they are looking at legislation preventing gay couples from being able to adopt children.” That was the end of consideration for that company. That, in and of itself, has nothing to do with that company, but the company will in some way support that state by paying state taxes. I won’t support that. That is my statement to them telling them that it sucks for them to be in a state that is that closed minded, and, there is a price to be paid for that. The price is my total loss of even being considered for business. Now, if enough of us would do that...

Another issue is the lifetime ban of gay men to donate blood. It is a stupid policy that is very discriminatory. But more than that, it gives people a very false sense of security which could risk their lives. Gay men are no longer the group that has the fastest growing incidence of HIV in this nation, but you can’t tell that by looking at the current policy of the Red Cross - a policy that was founded in 1990. For instance,

A senior executive at the Red Cross said it had no control over the ban on blood donations from men who had had sex with men.

“It’s an FDA policy,” chief medical officer Jerry Squires said at the organization’s headquarters in Washington. “I’m trying to say as clearly as I can that we’re not the experts.”

At an FDA hearing in 2000, the last time the agency reviewed its policy, the Red Cross testified in favor of keeping what the industry called a “lifetime deferral” for men who had had sex with men. The FDA’s expert panel voted 7 to 6 to maintain the ban.

Derek Mitchell, who organized the Red Cross boycott at the University of Maine, said the organization was largely responsible for the FDA decision. [...]

They point out that the rules are far more forgiving to members of other high-risk groups. “A woman who has sex with a bisexual man is banned for just a year,” Mitchell said. “A man who has sex with the same man is banned for life.”

Squires, of the Red Cross, acknowledged that was an inconsistency in the rules. (source)

No kidding it’s inconsistent. But for me, I’ve long accepted that it’s ok that I can’t give blood anymore. I used to give blood at every opportunity. I did so because as a citizen, I wanted to do my part to help others in need. When the ban was put into place, I could understand the rationale. I didn’t like the policy, but I did understand it. Now, it’s pure homophobia and prejudice at work.

Over time, I stopped caring about the policy. If you intellectually analyze the issue, why should I care? I can’t effect the policy. I can’t change people’s minds other than trying to be an example of what I am, which I am doing. So, I suppose it all comes down to three simple words: “Not my problem.”

I don’t say that in a hateful or mean spirited way. It’s more of a reconciliation of the way things are. I’m 50 now. If the American Red Cross wants to collectively be assholes, does this really affect me? No, not unless I let it affect me. So many things in life are that way. So many problems that we, all of us, carry around in life are like a sack of bricks we carry on our backs. All we have to do is put the sack down.

Other writings on this
The way I felt... 15 years ago

6 Comments

Bill said:

"There are false positives, due to the sensitivity of the tests, but there are such things as false negatives. It is about the safety of the blood supply. If you, or people you love, needed blood or blood products wouldn't you want the donor to be screened and tested to the highest levels possable? I would, as would anyone else." - Julie

Of course I want the blood supply to be as safe as it can be. That's why I want this ban lifted so that all blood is tested uniformly. I'm sure you realize that gay men are currently surpassed in the number of new cases of AIDS by... women. What do we do? Are we going to ban all women in the U.S. from donating blood now? Of course not.

And why is it that gay men are banned FOR LIFE if they have had sex with another man since 1977, and straight men who has had sex with prostitutes are banned from giving blood for only a number of months? Where is the concern over that?

I see these disparities and I try to believe that the Red Cross and other agencies are sincere in trying to protect the blood supply, but I can't reconcile how banning gay men for life is protecting the blood supply, when there are so many other “high risk” people out there that is being let through.

I guess if we want to continue to believe that banning gay men from giving blood for life is making things safer for the blood supply, we can continue to do that. I prefer to work in reality.

Either way, even if I could give blood again, I wouldn't do it. I've lost my sense of giving in this area because the whole issue has become one of politics and bigotry. But that's just me.

Julie said:

This is in respose to Bill's comments about blood testing.

There are false positives, due to the sensitivity of the tests, but there are such things as false negatives. It is about the safety of the blood supply. If you, or people you love, needed blood or blood products wouldn't you want the donor to be screened and tested to the highest levels possable? I would, as would anyone else.

Blood banking is much more complicated than people realize. Blood banks are regulated by not one, but two codes of federal regulation (CFRs). It should also be noted that the Red Cross has not been meeting FDA regulations for over 20 years. Massive violations were found by the FDA throughout the Red Cross system in 1985. They signed a consent agreement with the FDA in 1989. They were not meeting that in 1993 and got huge fines. Even now, they are still not meeting federal guidlines.

I would not want to be on the recieving end of Red Cross blood products.

Bill said:

I agree - when the ban on gay men donating blood was put into place in 1985, little was known about how AIDS was spread. And, people thought that it was only in the gay community that the disease existed. At that time in the United States, that was correct. And, I also think that at the time, it was wise for the ban to go into effect.

But now everything is different. To hold on to this ban making people think that the blood supply is safer is just dangerous. All blood is tested now and the tests are very reliable. AIDS is found across different segments of society in the U.S. now. To keep this ban just on gay men is stupid. It's time for the ban to be lifted and to test all blood without regard to the donors' sexual orientation....

...unless anyone can come up with a reason to keep the ban in place, outside of bigotry.

Julie said:

The ban on homosexual men donating blood was put into place by the FDA in 1985, it is not meant to be discrimanatory. At that time the FDA, American Association of Blood Banks & the American Red Cross were in the height of the AIDS epidemic & they were scrambling to stop the spead of it through blood & blood products. Thousands were infected through the 1980's. Things have changed & this regulation should be reviewed, but things take time. People who have spent time adding up to 3 months or more in the UK from 1980-1996 are permanently deferred due to potential exposure to mad cow disease (varient Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease) & that it is not known if vCJD can be transfused through blood. The same applies to miitary personel & persons associated with military bases who were statined in Europe for 6 months or greater from 1980-1996. I've worked for a local blood center (not Red Cross) for 3 years, so I know these regulations well. I would recommend reading "Blood: An Epic History of Medicine & Commerce". Useful.

Bill said:

Robin,

I do have a filter in place that filters based on key words (to prevent spam). If you email me the comment you want posted, I'll post it for you. :)

Send it to webmaster@billandkent.com. In the subject, put "Comment would not post."

Robin said:

Well - would have commented but it seems my comment is blocked because of "questionable content"

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Bill published on July 10, 2005 2:02 PM.

Billandkent.com Was Hacked was the previous entry in this blog.

Fire at church painted with gay slurs was arson is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Our Blogroll

Powered by Movable Type 4.21-en
Enhanced with Snapshots