Telling the story from our point of view

Blog Archive

November 30, 2005

Safe sex? Why not safe blood?

The CDC's blood and tissue donation guidelines are under fire from a gay activist's family because the dead activist's eye and tissue were rejected allegedly because he was gay. Some homosexual activist groups were quick to denounce the rules, which protect the nation's blood supply.
"The rules are really discriminatory and arcane," said Kent Burbank, executive director of Wingspan, southern Arizona's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community center.
"We shouldn't be making those assumptions based on identity. It should be based on sexual history," he said.

"What is happening is they're not giving people the option of taking organs from HIV negative men, and they're excluding organs that could be safe," said Joel Ginsberg, executive director of San Francisco's Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

The Red Cross which follows similar policies, was branded as "homophobic" and "discriminatory" by Harvard's Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance.
The current restrictions prohibit men who have engaged in homosexual activity since 1977 from donating blood. The purpose is to ensure the nation's blood supplies are not tainted from AIDS infected blood. Some have called the rule discriminatory because it only targets homosexual men. That makes good sense, especially since homosexual men consistently have the highest rates of AIDS infections and engage in risky sexual behavior at a greater frequency than other groups.

Exposure Category Estimated # of AIDS Cases, Through 2003
Male Female Total
Male-to-male sexual contact 440,887 - 440,887
Injection Drug Use 175,988 70,558 246,546
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 62,418 - 62,418
Heterosexual contact 56,403 93,586 149,989
Other* 14,191 6,535 20,726
* Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal, and risk not reported or not identified.
It makes perfectly safe sense to profile and screen homosexual men based on that fact alone. Imagine what could happen if infected blood were to get into the supply system? The severe crisis would push the already needy system over the edge for who knows how long. Its amazing how selfish and narrow minded some of these gay activists are whose only concern is discrimination. Sometimes, discrimination is for the greater good. This is one of those instances. Although the policy's foundation is an issue of public safety --not gay rights-- some fail to see this and would put everyone at risk for the sake of "rights". They champion safe sex, why not safe blood?

If they researched like this gay activist did, they discover the truth and solid reasoning behind the CDC's guidelines.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

DL, I've noticed people have stopped responding to your posts, that being said, be careful what you wish for. Blacks as a group now have the highest HIV rates in the U.S. and the world for that matter. Should blacks be added to the list of blood donors that should be profiled?

DL Foster said...

Im not sure if people not responding is a sign of anything.
The majority of the ones who were, were acidic.
To answer your question, no blacks should not be added to the list of profiled donors. Neither should lesbians, Arabs or old grandmas in Wyoming.
The CDC guidelines profile homosexual men who have engaged in sexual activities since 1977.
That's not because I wished for it, its because its the right thing to do.

Anonymous said...

DL, we could take this further and say, maybe black immigrants here with origins from certain countries of Southern Africa with high HIV/AIDS rates should be banned from giving blood as well. In some of those countries they have HIV prevalence rates of 35% or more (nearly matching rates found among black homosexuals in the U.S. and far exceeding the rates found among white, Asian or Latino homosexuals in the U.S.) and supposedly this is heterosexual sex. In Haiti the HIV rate is between 3-6% depending on your source. What levels of HIV prevalence among these populations should be the trigger to profile or ban these folks from the blood supply in the U.S.?

DL Foster said...

All your objections should be addressed to the CDC. If this is really a concern to you, Im not sure why you havent made that known to them prior to my post.

I dont have the power nor the inclination to change their guidelines. Like I have already stated, I believe the current guidelines are fair, reasonable and safe. Further, the CDC's guidelines are applicable to US blood banks, not Haiti or other foreign populations. You asked if blacks should be added, I said no not as "blacks". However, certain blacks already are: black (or formerly homosexual men; that's me)homosexual men who engaged in those sexual activities before 1977. Since gay men are demographically diverse, then the ban would indeed apply to other ethnicities you mentioned.
This is a public safety issue.

Anonymous said...

Notice I said African immigrants to this country, not Africans over in Africa or Haitians over in Haiti. It's not neccessarily the sex act, it's the number of sexual partners one exposes him or herself to that increase the risk of catching something. I know conservatives have been arguing it's all about the anal/"sodomite" sex, hence this might explain the black African high AIDS rates.

DL Foster said...

From:
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid22719.asp

What I found is that there is, in fact, good science to support these policies. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the most recent U.S. study, conducted in 2003, men who have sex with men accounted for approximately two thirds of all HIV infections among men, although only 5% to 7% of men in the United States identify themselves as men who have sex with men. (Obviously their surveys underestimate the true number of men who have sex with men, but even accounting for this error, the data is overwhelming.) The CDC’s statistical models predict that if the criterion was relaxed to exclude only those who have had man-to-man sex in the past five years, the worst-case scenario would mean an additional 1,200 units of HIV-positive blood in the system—a potential disaster.

If he sees the danger, why dont you?

Brady said...

DL, I think the current regulations are appropriate to an extent. But, to me it doesn't make sense that if I had one sexual encounter with another male that was a virgin 20 years ago, I would be banned from giving blood, even if I have been tested every 6 months and show to be negative since then. However, if a straight man had sex with 100's of prostitutes 15 years ago without protection, and has never been tested, he would still be allowed to donate.

Does that not sound a bit odd to you?

DL Foster said...

no, not odd at all.
the restrictions are based on hard statistics. Facts. As the old saying goes, you cant argue with facts. Im banned too, but ask me if I care.

Anonymous said...

50% of newly infected HIV cases are blacks and we only represent 12 or 13% of the population, so what's your point? As a black man, I would be very careful about advocating profiling for other groups.

This argument is actually of no consequence, other than the outrage felt by gay activists at such blatant discrimination. I live in the 'hood (Detroit), and many gay, bi-sexual or "DL" men I know have given blood, are not well read, and have no idea that they are banned from giving blood. They have donated blood, got their little pins, and went on about their business... thank you very much.

DL Foster said...

50% of newly infected HIV cases are blacks and we only represent 12 or 13% of the population, so what's your point? As a black man, I would be very careful about advocating profiling for other groups.
This argument is actually of no consequence, other than the outrage felt by gay activists at such blatant discrimination. I live in the 'hood (Detroit), and many gay, bi-sexual or "DL" men I know have given blood, are not well read, and have no idea that they are banned from giving blood. They have donated blood, got their little pins, and went on about their business... thank you very much.


Anonymous,
There is no point to make. Maybe you are looking to hard. The CDC issued the guidelines, not me. I simply support the guidelines in their current form.
Kudos to the black, gay, hood blood donors[sarcasm]. They slipped through. That may speak more to the ignorance of some people about the efforts to protect the nation's blood supply. As a black man, I would never celebrate ignorance.