KarMel
Scholarship 2007
|
“A Red Crimson Gift of Life” By Anonymous |
Desciption of Submission: An account of my first experience in donating blood with the American Red Cross. It was not only a service to others, but also the realization that I want to become a leader in homosexual rights.
July
21st, 2006. It was my first
time donating blood. I was scared,
frightened, and quite frankly, didn’t know what to expect. However, I have always been willing to give
and sacrifice my time and energy for the service of other’s. The American Red Cross is a cause I truly
believe in, and I want to make a life-long commitment in the pursuit of saving
lives for as long as I can. Subsequently,
it wasn’t the needles, iodine, or bags of Cheez-its crackers that I remember
most from that summer day. As I read the
eligibility guidelines prior to donating, one statement stood out to me to me
the most: “You may not donate if you are a male who has had sexual contact with
another male, even once, since 1977”. And
while I had not had sexual contact with another male, I needed to understand
the premises for this ban not only for myself but for a growing segment of the
American society.
In
1985, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adopted the current policy to
exclude all men who have had sex with another man since 1977. The policy was created soon after HIV, or human immunodeficiency virus, was known to
cause AIDS, or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, a disease first known to
affect homosexual men and their immune systems.
The policy made sense at the time of the AIDS epidemic during the early-
and mid-1980’s. However, according to
Bob Roehr, a member of the advisory board to the Director of the National
Institutes of Health, current research seems to counteract the conclusions that
first stigmatized gay men. In Roehr’s
article, “The Gift of Life: Gay Men and US Blood Donation Policy”, he argues
that “there is virtually no risk of transmission of HIV through oral sex”,
“data from heterosexual couples in Uganda indicates that those with
sufficiently low viral load only rarely transmit HIV through vaginal sex”, and
“proper, consistent use of condoms and lubricant is highly effective in preventing
transmission of the virus”. In addition,
various screening mechanisms have been implemented to detect early signs of the
HIV. The nucleic acid test, which is the
standard for all blood donation screenings, can detect HIV RNA fragments within
four to five days. Primary HIV infection
often results in the detection a fever, and in such a case, temperature readings
are taken during screening.
When the policy was first set in
1985, “government officials…said it was needed to guarantee the safety of donated
blood in the county since gay men were significantly more likely to be infected
with HIV than heterosexual men”, noted in the March 14th, 2006
article of the Washington Blade, “Red
Cross calls for an end to ban on gay blood donors”. In a September 14th, 2000 meeting
of the FDA Blood Products Advisory Committee, the federal organization proposed
changing the current ban on donation to a more flexible standard of having had
sex with another man within the last five years. Opposition to the change grew. Dr. Rebecca Haley, interim chief medical
officer for the American Red Cross, notified the committee that the Red Cross
did not support changing the current ban on blood donation because of the risk
of introducing HIV-positive blood into the national blood supply. According to a September 15th,
2000 Main News article by writer
Becky Orfinger, “FDA Committee Votes Against Relaxing
Donor Ban”, “changing to a five-year deferral policy could potentially
introduce 1,246 units of HIV-positive blood into the system to be screened”.
On
the other side of the spectrum, opposition to the current ban has been uprooted
by various organizations, institutions, and individuals. Dr. Michael Busch of the University of
California, San Francisco recognized that “serological tests routinely
performed on all donated blood to detect HIV and other blood-borne viruses are
sensitive enough to prevent all but about 10 HIV-infected units from entering
the blood supply each year” (Orfinger).
Dr. Adrienne Smith of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association noted that
“the current donor ban stigmatizes gay men”, and “it is unfair that donors who
disclose of having engaged in risky heterosexual behavior are only deferred
from donating for a year, not a lifetime” (Orfinger). In a July 11th,
2005 Boston Globe article by writer
Steven Bodzin, “college groups contend that the policy is outdated,
ineffective, and homophobic”.
Progressive action has even taken place on college campuses towards the
issue. For example, the student
government at the
A
quarter of 2007 will soon pass, and what potential actions should be taken to
alter the current ban? First and
foremost, attempts should start by proposing to amend the policy to a 12-month
deferral, the same policy as with other risky behaviors. Communities should seek uniformity with
heterosexuals and homosexuals alike on standards of what is considered “risky
behavior”. Heterosexual and homosexual
individuals, whether HIV-positive or HIV-negative, should be held to the same
standards and eligibility in donating blood.
As foreshadowed earlier by Bob Roehr of the National Institutes of
Health, consideration should be given to removing oral sex as a category of
risky behavior, as there is no transmission of HIV. It may make more sense and be cost effective
to segregate blood from higher risk donors and screen them in smaller and more
individualized pools. In addition,
organizations in support of homosexual individuals should find passion in
questioning policies that directly affect them and being one step closer to
obtaining a fair, indiscriminate, and egalitarian society.
I
ended up giving blood on July 21st, 2006. Since then, I’ve donated a total of four
times, reinvigorating myself each time and reminding myself why I do it. While 60% of the American population can give
blood, only 5% actually do, resulting in about 9 million out of a possible 174
million people. There are 62,300
homosexual men in our nation who want and are able to donate blood but are
prohibited to do so by current law.
While I am personally fortunate enough to currently donate blood, I want
these 62,300 individuals, even though it may be a seemingly small portion of
the population, to be just as fortunate.
As I set my upcoming donation appointment for April 19th,
2007, I am at a crossroads. Do I
sacrifice my sexual needs and a potential partner in the future in exchange for
saving lives by donating blood the remainder of my life? Time will tell. With high motivations and a will to succeed,
this very issue has become a steppingstone for my pursuit to ensue not only
homosexual rights in the American society, but also a free, democratic world
for all.