No Room for Gay Blood Donors

FROM THE ARCHIVES (Daily Nebraskan columns)

No Room for Gay Blood Donors

Jeremy Patrick (jhaeman@hotmail.com)

September 25, 2000

"There are more things, Lucilius, that frighten us than injure us, and we suffer more in imagination than in reality."
---Seneca, Epistulae ad Lucilium

I remember filling in the little circle next to "YES" on the questionnaire. I did it with some trepidation, but my girlfriend at the time (a med-tech student) had assured me that they would simply ask me some additional questions.
Once I explained my answer, she said, everything would be fine. I know now that studies show many people lie on these forms. Because of pride, morality or some mixture of the two, I decided to be honest.
With even more trepidation, I handed the form to the nurse and sat down across from her at a little desk screened off from everyone else in the gymnasium. She had a little card ready.
"What type of blood are you?" she asked. I could never remember, even though every time I went they told me. I still can't remember. "O" maybe?
It's amazing that I can still recall that G.I. Joe No. 54 (a comic book I bought almost 14 years ago) has a picture of Flint on the cover, firing a machine gun while parachuting from a burning plane, but that I can never recall one of the most important facts about myself. She made small talk as she pricked my finger with a little gadget, waited a minute or so, looked at it and then wrote the results down on the card.
"OK," she said. "Just let me look at your form and then we'll get started."
Her finger trailed down the page, and she tapped at each question and its answer. About halfway down she lifted her finger up to tap and it stayed there, as if suspended from a string. She had a confused look on her face. She looked at me and then looked down to read the question and its answer again.
She pushed the paper across the table so I could read it.
"You answered 'yes' to the question: 'Have you ever had sex with another man, even once, since 1977?' Is that right?" she said.
"Yes," I said nervously, but remembering Kitty's advice. "But it was always safe, and I've tested negative each time."
"I'm sorry," she said with a sigh, "but that's grounds for permanent deferral." She looked sincerely apologetic, but mindful of her duty. "We really do appreciate you coming in."
There wasn't much else to say. I got up and left. I was a little angry but mostly embarrassed. Kitty had been wrong, but not without good reason. She'd given blood several times and always answered "yes" when asked if she had ever "had sex with a man who's had sex with a man since 1977."
After explaining that it was always safe, they had gone ahead and let her give blood. We had assumed the same rule applied to men, but you know what they say about the word "assume."
Last week, the FDA's Blood Products Advisory Committee considered ending the ban on gay blood donations. The American Association of Blood Banks (which makes up half of the nation's blood banks) proposed the change because it felt that the ban was discriminatory and unnecessary to keep blood transfusions safe.
Predictably, the Red Cross opposed the change.
In law school, we sometimes ask whether certain laws are overbroad or underinclusive.
The current ban on gay blood donations is clearly both.
It is overbroad because it considers a man who has only had safe sex in a monogamous relationship as the same kind of risk as a male hustler. It is underinclusive because a man or a woman who has had unprotected anal intercourse with a member of the opposite sex dozens of times is not even asked about the practice.
Perhaps in 1985, when the ban was first adopted, it made sense. But now, enormously accurate nucleic acid tests can detect the presence of HIV within 20 days after infection, and the traditional "risk groups" have changed: Heterosexuals are the majority of new HIV infections in this country. (Omaha World-Herald, Sept. 13, 2000)
As the safe-sex advocates like to say, "It's not who you are but what you do."
James Petty, director of an equal rights group, said it well: "HIV is a disease that affects all people. It's particularly prominent in the African-American community, and we're not saying African-Americans can't donate.
"It's increasingly prominent among women, and we haven't said women can't donate. It's an old stereotype that has long passed any period of usefulness. It's presumed that if you're gay, you're a carrier of STDs or AIDS." (PlanetOut News, Sept. 15, 2000)
On Sept. 15, the FDA committee voted 7-6 to retain the ban.
On Sept. 20, the Associated Press carried a story with the headline: "Red Cross Appeals For Blood Donors."
Apparently, blood donations are decreasing about one percent a year, while the demand for blood is increasing by the same amount.
According to the article, several hospitals have been forced to postpone elective surgeries due to lack of blood, and the Red Cross has only a three-day supply in its national inventory.
"The nation's blood supply is in danger," said Red Cross President Dr. Bernadine Healy. "We need help now."
I want to help.
But I can't.
(c) 2000 Jeremy Patrick