Wayne Besen - Author, Activist, Columnist, Public Speaker

Thursday, May 24, 2007

On page A19 of today's New York Times there are two revealing stories. The first deals with the Food and Drug Administration, that reaffirmed its policy of of banning gay blood donors, more than a year after the Red Cross and two other blood groups slammed the ban as "medically and scientifically unwarranted."

On the bottom of the page is the announcement that Mary Cheney had a baby boy. Sadly, thanks to the politics of the child's grandfather - with the support of his mother - he was born into a world where his parents have no legal rights (they live in Virginia) and the FDA would discriminate against him if he grew up to be gay (I hear it runs in families).

Thanks Mary.

17 Comments:

I see no reason why gay men should care whether they can legally donate blood or not. In comparison to other legal issues affecting gay men, this one is at best trivial; why make an issue of it?
posted by Anonymous, at 5/25/2007 5:07 AM

It's about being accepted as human beings. Saying our blood is not fit for use by other human beings is basically lowering our status as members of humanity. Every issue is important. When the Red Cross says to donate blood, they use the slogan "Give Life." Saying gay people are not fit to give life- well, it's not too far from saying gay people cannot nurture life (adoption) share life (marriage)or save life (military service).
posted by Emily K, at 5/25/2007 9:32 AM

But by the gay communities own standards and statments, gay men are at greater risk for STD's - thus being the case - why spend your limited resources testing the blood of a high risk group when a greater portion of that donation is going to be declined? Use your resources on more sure bets and test the population that is not going to be declined as often.
posted by Anonymous, at 5/25/2007 4:18 PM

I'm sorry but some bad apples have spoiled the barrel.
posted by Anonymous, at 5/25/2007 4:18 PM

The above two comments totally ignored what Wayne just said--the Red Cross and two other blood groups slammed the ban as "medically and scientifically unwarranted." What part of 'scientifically unwarranted' don't you understand? Unless, of course, you're using bush/faith based 'science', which is a total oxymoron. I believe ALL blood is tested for pathogens, not just that coming from gay men. By the way, whenever I have dontated blood, no one ever asked me my sexual orientation.
Red V
posted by Anonymous, at 5/25/2007 4:27 PM

But you have to spend resources for blood that will be declined. It's of no use. Taking resources of people, time, money etc... for a population that is high risk. I'm not making a moral judgment - but financial.
posted by Anonymous, at 5/25/2007 8:07 PM

"Anonymous," the money goes towards the same exhaustive and "fruitless" search no matter who donates the blood. All blood gets tested. All the people get paid. All the money gets spent. Why not just take all the blood you can and test it ALL - use SCIENCE to defend your actions. For example: SCIENCE says that gays should be able to donate. SCIENCE tells you when blood is diseased, not human judgment.
posted by Emily K, at 5/25/2007 9:49 PM

Thanks Emily, that's what I was trying to say. And by the way anon. I am NOT high risk. You and others should not presume to judge me just because I'm gay. I have been in a monogamous relationship for many years and have long known that I am hiv negative.
Red V
posted by Anonymous, at 5/25/2007 10:16 PM

Gay men are high risk by your say so. Please check gay men's health websites. And if you are spending resources on blood that must be thrown away - that does not make sense. Yes, it is all getting checked - but for the profit of good blood.
posted by Anonymous, at 5/25/2007 10:52 PM

I recently took a college course entirely dedicated to the study of AIDS and HIV. Today HIV infection is particularly high in many, many communities, not just the gay community. For example, African Americans, Hispanics and women around the world are some of the groups most affected right now and if every high-risk group was prevented from donating blood, think of how many lives would be lost simply because so few could donate. All blood is tested anyways so I really don't think it should matter who donates! Better to have more blood and have to throw away some than to have not enough!
posted by Anonymous, at 5/26/2007 1:05 AM

Had AIDS/HIV been first discovered in heterosexuals, I often wonder if the CDC, WHO and others would have used the term "high-risk group". I think not. The ban on Gay donors is absurd and offensive. I'm HIV negative and have been donating blood for years. This is nothing more than a classic case of homophobia.

Robert, NYC.
posted by Anonymous, at 5/26/2007 10:46 AM

'Anon' you are making a moral judgment, don't hide behind the financial excuse. You use the phrase 'going to be declined', 'will be declined' and you assume all gay men are diseased or high risk. Your mind is made up, just like those who keep this ban in place.
posted by Anonymous, at 5/26/2007 1:15 PM

I'm not assuming ALL gay men are at risk. I'm quoting from gay men's health sites that gay men are at higher risk. Of course, not all gay men are such. BTW, doesn't it make sense that gay men are recieving this blood and are they not not entitled to a blood supply that is shallow because of time and expenses used testing and throwing away blood?? Don't you want to to reach as many people who need blood as possible?? That includes gay men, mothers, fathers etc... I'm not hiding behind anything - gays want to push their humanity card around and then say it is better to not hurt people's feelings and go ahead and spend extra money, time and resources for infected blood - and keep the blood supply low - then maybe when there really is a need, someone may have to die because we did not want to hurt gay men's feelings??? Sorry - but I say again - and accusse me of whatever bigotry - but go to your own community health sites and see what it says about high risk for gay men. Not all gay men are such - but of that population - more so than in others.
posted by Anonymous, at 5/26/2007 2:09 PM

AIDS is rampant in Africa where the average mortality is age 35. Children have no parents, children are infected etc... AIDS is more of a problem there than here. As far as it rising in other populations within the United States - what those statistics are measuring is not the actual numbers of each person but the percentage of people in that population. So - while HIV/AIDS stay minimally unchanged within the gay population (that means new caes are still being diagnosed) they are saying that the percentage has not changed significantly. Then for other groups where it seemed low at times there is now a higher percentage of that group. The numbers are a little misconstrued since they are not actually counting each person. And it is remains higher in the gay mens population in the US than in any other demographic group.
posted by Anonymous, at 5/26/2007 2:15 PM

Why can't the Red Cross decide for itself whether it's cost effective to accept gay blood or not? Why is the FDA involved?
posted by Anonymous, at 5/26/2007 3:22 PM

Maybe the cost of appropriate testing standards are too high for Red Cross and what is currently in place does not meet FDA approval. Just a guess.
posted by Anonymous, at 5/26/2007 11:22 PM

Sadly, thanks to the politics of the child's grandfather - with the support of his mother - he was born into a world where his parents have no legal rights

Unfortunately, it wasn't the politics of his grandfather that left his parents without legal rights. It was his Mother's decision to deprive him of a Father that did that. She did this all by herself.
posted by Marty, at 6/02/2007 8:04 PM