FDA: Protecting blood supply from AIDS might “offend” straight people

The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said this week that it will not ask potential blood donors about their high-risk sexual behavior, even if the questions would help ensure the safety of the nation’s blood supply from HIV/AIDS, because heterosexual donors might find the questioning “offensive.”

This, after decades of the FDA asking male blood donors if they are gay, and then asking the gay ones whether they have had sex with men at any time since the late 1970s.

Philadelphia NPR station WHYY-FM has the FDA’s incredible comment:

“Assessment of high-risk sexual behaviors would be highly burdensome on blood donation establishments and potentially offensive to donors,” the agency wrote.

The new FDA statement comes on the heels of last week’s change in the agency’s long-standing gay-ban on blood donations. Previously, no man who had had sex with even one man since the late 1970s could donate blood. Now, under the new policy, the FDA asks male donors if they’ve had sex with another man in the past 12 months.

“Does this closet look small on me?”

via Shutterstock

There have been protests against the new FDA policy, arguing that it’s outdated because blood tests can now detect HIV within weeks of exposure — so asking gay men to be celibate for a year before donating is unreasonable and unnecessary.

The protesters also asked why the FDA isn’t asking all donors about their high-risk sexual behavior — behavior that raises the chances of contracting HIV — regardless of whether the act is opposite- or same- sex. That last question is what precipitated the FDA’s new response about offending straight donors.

So to recap, the FDA believes that a total stranger asking a man if he’s gay — a highly personal, and for some embarrassing, admission that could get you fired from your job, and disowned by your family — is not “offensive.”

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN CHALLENGES FDA GAY BLOOD BAN: 'HAVE THE COURAGE TO SET POLICIES BASED ON SCIENCE'

Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) again spoke out against the FDA's new blood donation policy — accepting blood from gay men, but only those who have been abstinent for at least one year.

Through Twitter, Warren called for concrete, alternative methods of ensuring blood safety, challenging the FDA to shake up the status quo.

Here's the Tweet:

The FDA must commit to building a bigger, safer blood supply through risk-based screening & have courage to set policies based on science.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) December 24, 2014

This statement is in line with the recent letter, signed by 80 congressional Democrats including Warren, which called for "risk-based blood donation policy," and stated:

The pertinent scientific question is not whether a cross-section of the population is more likely than another to transmit an infection, but rather whether an across-the-board, risk-based screening will reduce the likelihood of all infectious contaminations.

In related news, the FDA released a statement this week saying it had considered individual self-assessments, but did not find them reliable:

"Assessment of high-risk sexual behaviors would be highly burdensome on blood donation establishments and potentially offensive to donors."

What do you think of the one-year deferral policy and the FDA's handling of the situation?

Nine Ways To Avoid Sex For The Next Year So You Can Donate A Pint Of Blood

The FDA has decided that the blood coursing through your veins isn’t a lifetime threat to the American public — just a year-long threat. So sometime next year, you can start donating blood.

Or more accurately, you can start the clock running on when you can donate blood in 2016. Because to do so, you have to avoid “sexual contact” with another man for at least a year. For your ordinary homo, never lacking in opportunity or desire, that’s an extreme challenge.

And don’t forget that sexual contact means everything because the FDA thinks everything you do is equally risky, even though it’s not.

So to donate blood, you need to get ready now, which means giving up sex for a year.

To help you meet this noble goal, here are ten tips guaranteed to strangle your libido…

1. Watch a Pat Robertson marathon.

Every night, you can spend time among the wreckage of the televangelist’s psyche by watching the hundreds of hours he’s spent on CBN. Let Pat remind you that gay sex isn’t very pretty, that you can catch AIDS from towels, and that being gay is like demonic possession. You’ll be so turned off sex or laugh so hard that the effect will be the same.

2. Take a walking tour of the deep, deep South.

You know, places like Tupelo, MS, the headquarters of the American Family Association and Bryan Fischer. Or Alabama, where you can count the number of antigay license plates you see. Or Louisiana, which refuses to remove an unconstitutional sodomy law from its books. Just be sure to stay clear of New Orleans, or you won’t be able to donate blood until 2017.

3. Visit Russia.

Yes, the land of Vladimir Putin, which has been proven to cure homosexuality (at least in the case of Gerard Depardieu). Alternately, Putin’s fellow homophobes can beat you to a pulp if they suspect you’re gay, in which case you may need blood before you can ever donate it.

4. Join the Catholic celibacy movement.

Yes, it’s officially a trend, because the mainstream media has reported on it. You can be a perfectly good Catholic by denying one of God’s greatest gifts and at the same time satisfy neither your puzzled LGBT siblings or the conservatives who would just assume purge you from the Church. But you will be able to give blood. (Obviously, celibacy doesn’t apply to priests.)

5. Become a Salvation Army officer.

Catholicism isn’t military enough for you? There’s always the Salvation Army. It’s every bit as repressive, but it comes with a uniform.

6. Borrow an Ebola quarantine tent from Chris Christie.

Want to cut yourself off from any human contact? Chris Christie has a bunch of tents left over from his disastrous (and unscientific) decision to throw a nurse who helped Ebola patients into quarantine. The downside? No cable.

7. Start swilling soy sauce.

Soy reduces testosterone levels and with it sex drive. Put soy sauce on your corn flakes in the morning, have an edamame shake for lunch, have a soy burger for dinner. After a while, you’ll probably feel nauseated as well, which will help you reach your overall goal.

8. Take up a really boring hobby.

How about collecting old phone books? Or sculpting butter? Or photographing roundabouts? (It helps if you’re British for that last one.) Plus as a bonus, you can shop at Hobby Lobby and contribute to the erosion of LGBT rights at the same time!

9. Become a Republican. 

Never mind. No one’s that desperate to donate blood.

FDA Panel Endorses Lifetime Ban on Gay Blood Donation, Suggests Gay Men Are Diseased Liars

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration’s Blood Products Advisory Panel met to discuss lifting the government’s 31-year-old ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men. Currently, any man who has had sexual contact with another man since 1977—even once, even using condoms—is barred for life from donating blood. The ban was instituted in 1983 in the early days of the AIDS crisis, when HIV testing was still rudimentary. It hasn’t been altered since.

There was some hope that the panel might support a policy recently endorsed by a nearly unanimous Department of Health and Human Services panel, which would allow gay men to donate blood if they’d been celibate for one year. But even that half-measure appeared to be too much for the panel, which closed its discussion without taking a formal vote. (The panel itself can’t make rules, but the FDA takes its suggestions very seriously when issuing guidelines.)

The panel’s refusal to advise replacing the lifetime ban with a one-year deferral—twinned with its craven refusal to go on the record as opposing it—is deeply irritating. Even more galling is its reasoning, or lack thereof: It’s clear that the advisers on the panel saw the campaign to lift the blood ban as more a political crusade than a scientific appeal. (Apparently, they haven’t checked in with American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers, the American Association of Blood Banks, and the American Medical Association, all of which oppose the ban.) “It sounds to me like we're talking about policy and civil rights” rather than safety and science, one adviser scoffed. Another anxiously described lowering the ban as “a leap of faith.”

This language is quite curious. The advisers were not considering abolishing the gay blood ban altogether; they were simply considering replacing it with a new ban that forces gay men to be celibate for a year before donating. Their stated opposition to gay blood donation is a fear that HIV-positive men will donate. But every blood donation is tested for HIV, and the virus can now be detected within weeks of infection. If gay men were celibate for a year before their donation, how could they possibly carry an increased risk for HIV? If they were already HIV-negative prior to a year of celibacy, how could they even have HIV at all?

Parse this chain of reasoning, and the Blood Products Advisory Panel’s true fear is obvious: It is afraid gay men will lie. The advisers won’t support a one-year deferral because they believe gay men will lie about how long they’ve been celibate in order to donate blood. There’s just no other way to justify opposition to a one-year deferral.

The panel’s skepticism might make sense if the FDA took a generally wary approach toward blood donation. But it doesn’t, to an almost comical degree. Under the current policies, a straight person who had sex with a prostitute of the opposite sex can give blood one year later. So can a straight person who had sex with an HIV-positive opposite-sex partner. Straight people who frequently have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous opposite-sex partners face no deferral at all. The FDA doesn’t seem concerned that any of these people will lie about their sexual behaviors.

Now, what do all of these lucky folks have in common that might make the FDA trust them? Ah, yes: They’re all straight. Ask a straight man whether he’s had sex with a prostitute in the last 12 months, and you can take his answer as the gospel truth. Ask a gay man if he’s had sex with anyone in the last 12 months—even his husband—and, well, you really just can’t take those people at their word, can you?

This treatment is very much in line with the FDA’s general attitude toward gay men, which is that they are diseased, irresponsible, and untrustworthy. Last August, a 16-year-old gay kid who committed suicide was forbidden from donating his eyeballs under FDA guidelines; the organization bars tissue donation from men who had sex with men less than five years before death, and the teen’s mom couldn’t prove he was celibate. When I heard the news of that horrific indignity, I didn’t think the organization could be any more dismissively disdainful of gay men. As it turns out, I was dead wrong.

FDA to lift gay blood ban, anti-gay right certain to pitch a fit

LaBarbera not happy with lifting of blood ban

The FDA’s Blood Products Advisory Committee is meeting to discuss potentially revising that policy. In November, the Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability recommended easing—but not lifting—the ban. It suggested a one-year deferral policy instead, under which gay men would be permitted to donate after a year of abstinence. The FDA will consider this recommendation, as well as scientific evidence on HIV blood safety, during its meeting.

Initially, gay men was banned completely from donating blood because of fears of getting blood contaminated with the HIV virus. However those who support the change point to the hypocrisy of the current policy. Earlier this year, a team of medical professionals and legal experts vouched for this change in an issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

According to CBS News:

. . . changing times and technological advances have rendered the decades-old ban obsolete, said JAMA article co-author Glenn Cohen, who directs Harvard Law School's Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics.

"We think it's time for the FDA to take a serious look at its policy, because it's out of step with peer countries, it's out of step with modern medicine, it's out of step with public opinion, and we feel it may be legally problematic," said Cohen, who co-wrote the article with Jeremy Feigenbaum of Harvard Law School and Dr. Eli Adashi of Brown University's medical school. The lifetime ban for gay or bisexual men stands in contradiction to other FDA policies regarding people considered high-risk donors due to their sexual behavior, Cohen noted.

For example, there currently is a maximum one-year ban in the United States for blood donations by men who have had sex with an HIV-positive woman or commercial sex workers. The same goes for women who have had sex with HIV-positive men.

The article goes on to say:

Call On HHS & The FDA To End Their Ban Against Gay & Bisexual Male Blood Donors

The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) bans gay & bisexual men from donating blood. The current lifetime deferral focuses on sexual orientation & we are calling on the FDA to change its policy so that it focuses on sexual behavior & individual risk instead.

In 2010, HHS agreed that the ban on MSM blood donations was “suboptimal”, but kept it in place pending additional research to “create a road map forward”.

The American Medical Association opposes the ban saying it isn’t based on sound science. The blood donation organizations believe the rule should be modified to reflect the deferrals for other similar high-risk sexual behavior. 85 members of Congress have written to HHS to encourage its end.

Changing this policy is long overdue - it is time to end this ban.

Click here to sign the petition!

National Gay Blood Drive Slated for July 11

As many gay men are well aware, nearly all of us are banned from donating blood as dictated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

This ban was put into place back in 1983, at the beginning of the HIV/AIDS crisis, and bans for life men who have had sexual contact with another man after the year 1977 from donating blood. Back in 1983, technology was not as far advanced as it is today, and screening methods now exist that can remove unusable blood from donated blood supplies before they reach hospitals and their patients.

It has been over a generation since the embargo was first enforced, and nothing has changed. Not even after the American Medical Association publicly spoke out against the ban last year, and not after members of Congress lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to change its policy. The people behind the National Gay Blood Drive, which will happen nationally on Friday, July 11, hope people across the country will come out and do their part to help throw this outdated policy in the garbage where it belongs.

On July 11, gay men across the country are going to show their willingness to donate blood by bringing an ally in their place to donate for them. The ally should get a name tag or a piece of paper and write the name of the person who wishes to donate but cannot, then have a photograph taken of the both of them together. The photographs (and where applicable, the nametags) will be collected and sent to the Food and Drug Administration to show them just how many people are united against their outdated and discriminatory policy. 

The organizers of the National Gay Blood Drive believe the policy should be changed from banning donations based on sexual orie

GAY MAN REJECTED AS AN ORGAN DONOR

Despite the fact that donated blood and organs can be screened quickly and accurately for STDs and complications, gay men are still treated like plague rats if they haven't been celibate for half a decade. Rohn Neugebauer was a healthy gay man in an 8-year committed relationship who inexplicably died of cardiac arrest at the age of 48. Given that he had recently co-hosted a fundraiser that raised thousands of dollars for a local organ donation organization, the Center for Organ Recovery & Education (CORE), it was no surprise that he was an organ donor himself. Neugebauer's sister went through the interview process with a CORE representative, and when she answered affirmatively to the question of whether Neugebauer had been in a relationship with another man in the past 5 years, he was immediately rejected as a donor.

CORE explicitly invoked an FDA guideline that prohibits tissue donations from sexually active gay men, but the organization's rejection is made perplexing by the fact that the prohibition does not apply to organ donation. CDC guidelines also state that the risk for HIV and disease transmission is so high with donations from gay men that they should be rejected unless the situation is "deemed to be greater than the risk of HIV transmission and disease" and the gay donor is the only option available. The sexual history of heterosexuals, conversely, does not impact their eligibility.

Over 121,000 people are presently on waiting lists for organ donation. CORE's senseless rejection may have just cost some their lives.

Why the FDA Bans Gays From Donating Blood—Despite All Medical Evidence

Motivated to donate blood after a sick friend with a rare blood type put out a plea, Blake Lynch tried to help but ended up walking out of a clinic, embarrassed.

After asking if he'd ever prostituted himself for money or drugs, the clinic's survey asked, “[Have you] had sexual contact with another male, even once?”

As a gay man, he had.

In 1983, the FDA began banning men who have had sex with other men at any time since 1977  (believed to be the year the AIDS epidemic began in the United States), from donating blood.

Lynch found the long-established rule, previously unknown to him, staggering.

“This policy thinks that I’m this dirty individual who is HIV positive, and that’s not true,” he said.

It wasn't the first time Lynch had faced harsh rebuke for his sexual identity. During his teenage years, he was sent to Exodus International, a group that provided therapy to turn gay Christians into heterosexuals. 

“It never really worked for me, and I didn't want it to work,” Lynch said.

At 22, the fed-up nursing student started a petition to overturn the FDA policy through the Banned4Life project, and he has been organizing blood drives for the past year. The events encourage eligible donors to give blood in place of gay men while educating them about the ban.

When it comes to donation restrictions, not much has changed since the U.S. Public Health Service warned that HIV, a big mystery in the 1980s, was transmitted through blood.

In 1990, at least 50,000 college students, factory workers, and families marched in New York City to protest the FDA’s announcement that Haitians were banned from donating blood. The government's argument was bolstered by data that AIDS was primarily transmitted through heterosexual sex in Haiti, which made it harder to identify high-risk individuals. The agency was soon forced to acknowledge that the policy, an effort to simplify donor exclusions, was “not subjected to close scientific scrutiny.” The FDA retracted the ban in less than a year.

Today, many countries have donor restrictions similar to those of the U.S., but because of recent medical evidence that it could no longer be justified, the ban has been lifted in Canada, South Africa, Australia, Sweden, Japan, and other countries. Instead, these countries have imposed a deferment window between having sex with other men and donating blood. In the United Kingdom, where the deferment period is one year, there has been no reported HIV infection through blood transfusion since 2002. The FDA estimates that in the U.S., the risk of contracting HIV from a unit of blood is one in 2 million.

Judge rules gay blood ban 'irrational'

Mr Justice Treacy held that the DUP minister breached the ministerial code by failing to take the issue before the Northern Ireland Executive.

The verdict on gay blood donation, in a challenge brought by an unidentified homosexual man, represents a major victory for campaigners seeking equal status with the rest of the UK.

The complete prohibition - put in place during the 1980s AIDS threat - was lifted in England, Scotland and Wales in November 2011.

It was replaced by new rules which allow blood from men whose last sexual contact with another man was more than a year ago. The 12-month deferral was left in place following a Government Advisory Committee report.

It identified a much shorter period during which infection with blood-borne viruses could not be detected.

Mr Poots maintained the ban in Northern Ireland on the grounds of ensuring public safety.

But a gay man, granted anonymity due to his perceived vulnerability, launched a judicial review challenge to Mr Poots' position.

Applying different standards to imported blood defeats the whole purpose of a permanent deferral.

Mr Justice Treacy

Mr Justice Treacy heard claims that the Minister had displayed apparent bias which went beyond religious beliefs and into the realms of prejudice.

It was revealed in court that, despite the unidentified applicant's sexual orientation, he has become a born-again Christian who now disapproves of homosexual practices.

Attorney General John Larkin QC, the chief legal adviser to the Stormont Executive, questioned the legitimacy of the challenge.

Despite Pressure, Ban on Gay Blood Donors Endures

The U.S. gay-rights movement has achieved many victories in recent years — on marriage, military service and other fronts. Yet one vestige of an earlier, more wary era remains firmly in place: the 30-year-old nationwide ban on blood donations by gay and bisexual men.

Dating from the first years of the AIDS epidemic, the ban is a source of frustration to many gay activists, and also to many leading players in the nation's health and blood-supply community who have joined in calling for change.

In June, the American Medical Association voted to oppose the policy. AMA board member William Kobler called it "discriminatory and not based on sound science." Last month, more than 80 members of Congress wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services, criticizing the lifetime ban as an outdated measure that perpetuates inaccurate stereotypes about gay men.

On some college campuses, students have urged boycotts of blood drives until the ban is repealed. Over the summer, activists organized a "National Gay Blood Drive" — asking gay men to visit blood centers, take tests to show their blood was safe, and then try to donate in defiance of the ban.

In the face of such pressure, the Food and Drug Administration — the HHS agency that regulates America's blood supply — has been unwavering. The lifetime ban will be eased, the FDA says, "only if supported by scientific data showing that a change in policy would not present a significant and preventable risk to blood recipients."

Under the auspices of HHS, a few studies are in progress that might lay the groundwork for a review of the policy. Department spokeswoman Diane Gianelli said the studies reflect a commitment to "continuously improving the safety and availability of the nation's blood supply."

However, some activists are impatient at the prospect of a research process that's likely to extend over several years with an uncertain outcome. They argue that the U.S. could move now to emulate Spain and Italy, where blanket bans on gay blood donations have been replaced by policies that ban donations by anyone — gay or straight — who's recently had unsafe sex, while allowing donations from gays and bisexuals whose blood is tested as safe and whose sexual behavior is deemed to pose no risk.

"We do not think HHS is moving fast enough," said Jason Cianciotto of Gay Men's Health Crisis, a New York-based nonprofit engaged in AIDS prevention and care.

Cianciotto said the ban "perpetuates the stigma that gay and bisexual men are dangerous to public health," and thus undercuts efforts to combat HIV.

More

Russian Leader Says Gays 'Sabotaging' Blood System, Proposes Gay-to-Straight Conversion Program

State Duma Deputy Mikhail Degtyaryov, a Moscow mayoral candidate for the LDPR party, is calling for a ban on blood donations by gay men, The Moscow Times reports:

"[Degtyarov] said Monday that his proposal is not an act of discrimination but a precautionary measure since over 65 percent of HIV-infected individuals are men, Interfax reported...

Degtyaryov said that the Duma is also considering a program to provide anonymous and voluntary counseling for gay and bisexual people who want to be heterosexual. "Many want to return to a normal life, to become heterosexual like 95 to 99 percent of our citizens," Degtyaryov said.

He also said that failure to forbid homosexuals from donating blood is a type of "sabotage."

Elizabeth Warren and 86 Members of Congress Demand an End to the FDA’s Gay Blood Donor Ban

"Led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and a group of 87 members of Congress sent a letter has sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’ demanding that they lift the ban on blood donors who are “men who have had sex with other men , at any time since 1977,” a policy the FDA has had in place since the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis in 1992.

“Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic more than 30 years ago, the scientific community’s understanding of the virus has changed dramatically. We have seen vast advances in blood screening technology, blood donation policy changes in other countries allowing MSM to donate, and opposition from our nation’s blood banks who have called the current ban ‘medically and scientifically unwarranted. Our current policies turn away healthy, willing donors even when we face serious blood shortages. Further, the existing lifetime ban continues to perpetuate inaccurate stereotypes about gay and bisexual men, and fosters an atmosphere that promotes discrimination and discourages individuals from from seeking HIV testing and treatment services.” Full story here!

Ryan James Yezak, Documentary Filmmaker, To Hold First National Gay Blood Drive

In 1985 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began enforcing a ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with other men anytime after 1977 for fear of drawing HIV-contaminated blood. Though much has happened in the last 30 years, and even with today's advanced HIV screenings, they refuse to change their stance on the ban.
Ryan James Yezak, the director of the upcoming documentary "Second Class Citizens," hopes to change this with the first ever National Gay Blood Drive on July 12.
All across the country on July 12 from 9am to 5pm PST, gay and bisexual men, (also known as "MSM donors") can show up to a designated blood donation center where a mobile HIV testing center will be waiting. The men will be tested, and once the test is negative, they can attempt to donate blood. When the men are rejected from giving blood, their HIV test results will be compiled and delivered to the FDA, to show the administration why they should lift their ban.
In a press release about the Blood Drive, Yezak says:

"The
 ban 
is 
outdated, 
and 
as 
a 
result,
 countless
 otherwise 
eligible 
gay 
and 
bisexual 
men 
are 
unable 
to 
contribute 
to 
the
nation’s
 blood 
supply 
and 
help 
save 
lives.
 
Especially a 
time 
when 
blood 
shortages 
are 
increasingly
 common.
 Not 
only 
that,
 but
 the
 ban 
perpetuates 
negative 
stereotypes 
and 
stigma. 
Whether
 intentional 
or 
not, 
it
 is 
discrimination
 based 
on 
sexual 
orientation.”

The American Medical Association (AMA) also recently came out against the gay blood ban, saying the ban is "discriminatory" and "not based on sound science."
For more information on the National Gay Blood Drive, watch the video above featuring Yezak, and check out his YouTube page on July 8 when his next YouTube video "National Gay Blood Drive" is released.

American Medical Association Opposes FDA Ban on Gay Men Donating Blood

The American Medical Association voted on Tuesday to oppose the FDA ban on gay men donating blood, ABC News reports: 

"The lifetime ban on blood donation for men who have sex with men is discriminatory and not based on sound science," AMA board member Dr. William Kobler said in a statement. "This new policy urges a federal policy change to ensure blood donation bans or deferrals are applied to donors according to their individual level of risk and are not based on sexual orientation alone."

The AMA recommends that the FDA change its policy so that gay men are evaluated on an individual level rather than being lumped together in a high-risk category, in addition to crafting a policy that more accurately represents scientific research.

Said Robert Valadez, policy analyst for the HIV/AIDS advocacy group Gay Men's Health Crisis: "The policy was formed at a time in our history when we didn't have a name for AIDS or HIV. Our technology has advanced to the point where … it is antiquated to keep this policy in place and to keep those units of blood from entering the blood supply."