Gay men can't give blood?

Thumbnail image for donor.jpg
I didn't know that until reading that a bunch of senators, including our own Dick Durbin and 
Roland Burris, have asked the Food and Drug Administration to lift the ban. We'll now have an outbreak of rhetoric like we years ago when we debated the right of privacy versus the common good. 

The FDA instituted the ban in 1983, permanently barring any man who had sex with another man since 1977 from donating blood. The policy was meant to curb the spread of HIV, hepatitis or other diseases for which [gay men] were determined to be at high risk.


The FDA's policy also permanently prohibits anyone who has received payment for sex, injected intravenous drugs or tested positive for HIV since 1977.

On its face, such a blanket ban seems unfair. Why not allow donations on an individual basis, and then test it for the HIV AIDS virus? Is this too much like "profiling" terrorists boarding airplanes?

On the other hand (not something I often say), I can understand the ban.  After discovery of the AIDS epidemic, the practitioners of tradition public health had urged routine HIV testing and other standard prevention tools such as contact tracing. Privacy advocates, the gay community and the political left prevailed, and unfortunately contributed to the spread of the virus. I remember that at one time, testing of pregnant women was banned, even though that knowledge could have helped prevent the transmission of the virus from mother to child.

Unfortunately, this will again devolve into a political and ideological battle. Both sides in that battle will say that the transmission of the virus through blood transfusions have been reduced dramatically. One side will say this demonstrates that the ban is no longer needed; the other will say the ban is the reason for the reduction.

Myself, I'm in favor of doing what good science and medical practice recommends. And that's what got me in trouble 20 years ago, when I got labeled a homophobe for it.  Truth is, gay men have a higher rate of infection than the general population, so it is not unreasonable to eye this demographic alertly and prescribe special precautions. What those should be, I'd leave up to good science.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Since the comment feature of the relevant post is fouled up, I'll post this here:
    _____________________
    Daley got behind Turner today, because "Turner came in second." However, I asked this question to N'Digo and got no answer: What about Daley telling Forrest Claypool to get behind Todd Stroger, because he won and Claypool lost?

    A different kind of racism, hypocrisy, or situational ethics? Why are you getting on that bandwagon?

  • remember Ryan White. I guess 1 persons life means nothing unless you believe in" their " way of thinking.Keep the ban on.

Leave a comment

  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Advertisement:
  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • google-site-verification: googlefdc32e3d5108044f.html
  • Meet The Blogger

    Dennis Byrne

    Chicago Tribune contributing op-ed columnist and author of forthcoming historical novel, "Madness: The War of 1812." Reporter, editor and columnist for Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Daily News. Freelance writer and editor.

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • Monthly Archives

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: