HIV Risk Factors and Blood Donation Discrimination
From the list of blood donor eligibility criteria for the American Red Cross:
Now, if you have ever had a positive HIV test, then no, you shouldn't donate blood (and you are probably well aware of this). But if you happen to be a man who's had sexual contact with another man, even once, in the past 37 years, you shouldn't donate blood?
That is blatant discrimination based on sexual orientation, which was illegal last I checked (and at the very least generally frowned upon). Yes, men who have sex with men are statistically more likely to be infected with the HIV virus, but so are black/African Americans, Hispanics/Latin(os/as), people of ages 20-29, and those who live in California/Florida/Texas/New York. Should everyone who falls into one or more of these categories be barred from donating blood? Of course not, the idea is preposterous. HIV/AIDS is not a "gay" disease. It can affect anyone. The problem here is not MSM, it is how society continues to wrongly perceive HIV/AIDS. According to the FDA, we should probably still be calling it GRID.
It can take up to 3 months for a blood test to show that you have HIV after coming into contact with the virus. If you don't have any risk factors, great, be generous with your blood as long as you meet the other eligibility requirements, and make sure that you still get yourself tested once a year. If you are in a high-risk category, it's advisable to get yourself tested every 3 months. If testing recommendations are adhered to, there is no reason that any category of people should be under a blanket deferral from giving blood. The American Red Cross eligibility checklist is already based on an honor system. Why couldn't it just be expanded a bit to cater to more potential blood donors? Since MSM are the highest risk category of people, I'll start there:
Are you a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977?
If yes, are you currently in a monogamous relationship?
Have you and your partner both had 4 consecutive HIV negative tests, at 3 months intervals, in the past year?
If no, have you had 4 consecutive HIV negative tests, at 3 month intervals, in the past year?
In the past 3 months, have you had sexual contact with a new partner, or a partner whose status you do not know with certainty/is not in a monogamous relationship with you?
That's only three more questions. Just three more short questions on a questionnaire and maybe even a quick HIV test at time of donation (and not even just for MSM, but for all donors) would serve to increase the national blood supply by safely and systematically validating a considerably large chunk of the population as blood donors. This would also be a step in destigmatizing and normalizing routine HIV testing, as well as in creating a society that doesn't treat homosexual people as dangerous, second-class citizens who aren't fit to donate blood simply because of their sexual preferences, even if said blood is proven disease-free and perfectly suitable for donation.
Many people protest the need for questions regarding their sexual history, which is absolutely understandable because of the deeply personal nature of such questions as well as how easily they are perceived by potential donors as irrelevant. Insensitive as may seem, it's necessary to consider the statistics of HIV infection in the blood donation eligibility determining process. It would be simply be irresponsible not to. That said, it is certainly possible to do so without blanket exclusion and alienation of any category of people.
origamiaround
ellievsbear
snowghoul
kianamaiart
kaledo-art
romaincrisis
gummygunk
dededos
