« Post-everything | Main | Exotic what? »
They want your blood
June 16, 2006
Only - not really. You see, there are these restrictions on blood donation. You cannot donate blood if:
•You have ever tested positive for HIV,
•You have ever injected yourself with drugs or other substances not prescribed by a physician,
•You are a man and have had sex with another man, even once,
•You have hemophilia or another Blood clotting disorder and received clotting factor concentrate,
•You have engaged in sex for drugs or money since 1977,
•You have lived in western Europe since 1980,
•You have been held in a correctional facility (including jails, prisons and/or detention centers) for more than 72 hours in the last 12 months,
•You were born in, lived in or had sex with anyone who lived in, or received Blood products in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger or Nigeria since 1977 (this list changes frequently; updates are very important) or,
•You are, or have been a sexual contact of someone in the above list.
There are also a whole lot of restrictions and deferrals (usually a year or so) with regards to certain medical conditions, medicines, and “other possible restrictions” – like if you’ve been raped you need to wait a year until you can donate blood. Likewise if you’ve had acupuncture.
Yes, it’s true that these days all incoming blood is tested – it’s also true that all these restrictions are based on the honor system. But the exclusion of high risk individuals is still a pretty loaded and interesting tactic.
Yesterday there was an editorial piece in the LA Times (free reg required, get a password from bugmenot.com) called, pointedly, Let gay men donate blood. This piece states that though 25 years ago it made sense to put this ban on gay men (when HIV was being called the “gay cancer”), today it does not, and the ban should be lifted. Though I agree, I also wonder about the long list of other bannable offences and how the editorial board feels about those.
But – wait for it – the best part is coming up. Perhaps to be less outlandish and radical and seem like their position has been more carefully considered, the editorial board suggests: “A temporary ban for gay men would still be needed. … So it’s necessary to exclude those who have recently had sex, even with condoms. But the new tests can detect the virus within 11 days, on average, after infection. A ban of several weeks or months should be sufficient.”
Oh yes, this is perfectly reasonable harm reduction.
Wait, no it isn’t. This is preposterous. In effect, this statement basically cancels out the “lift the ban” statement. While certainly there are men who have sex with men who go “several weeks or months” between sexual contacts, this is a pretty high bar to set for blood donors, especially because the general preference is for young, healthy, fit people. My unscientific conclusion is that people who match that are probably also sexually active. So – thanks for the empty gesture, LA Times, but think of a more realistic solution next time.
Posted by Dacia at June 16, 2006 09:49 AM
Comments
What total bullshit. That ban on men who have sex with men has always been sort of incomprehensible to me.
Posted by: Amber at June 16, 2006 12:53 PM
I don’t think you’re seeing the point of the gesture. You’re right in the fact that it wouldn’t probably increase the volume of blood donations by any incredible amount. But it’s not meant to be a practial solution for obtaining the blood that the system so desperately needs. (Yes, they DO need blood donations, please donate if you can). It’s meant to abolish an obvious discrimination against homosexuals that has no practical reasoning anymore. Sexually active heterosexuals who do not use protection are at similar risk for contracting HIV as homosexuals. Why should homosexuals be treated as if they might be diseased-by-default? That’s kinda fucked up. This may not be a positive move for anyone, but it would be a terrible policy undone. And for that, I think it’s a good idea.
Posted by: BrianVan at June 16, 2006 01:02 PM
I was first rejected from giving blood when I was 17, and have never tried to go back (having sex with men who have sex with men…). Back in my undergrad days — I think this was 1997? — the on-campus queer org sponsored a direct action at a Red Cross donor day on campus, which, in retrospect, backfired nearly completely — I declined to take part in occupying the bed intended for donors, but we leafleted and did interviews and all that. It’s amazing to mse that this is still such an outrageous issue — and yet, little changes.
Another level of the injustice — it hurts. 9/11 comes up, calls to donote ring in, and I can’t, most of ‘my people’ can’t (not speaking even for queer people here, but most of the people I call community). Same for Katrina — we organize in other ways, and some of my friends have just flat lied when they get on the couch — on the theory that all the blood is tested anyway.
I’m waiting for the moment when headway is made around designations like men-who-have-sex-with-men rather than homosexual, or bisexual. That’s such a vital shift, for health/safety reasons as much as sexual/social justice, but it requires so much.
No “good” people want to think they have to be inspected, contained, tested, judged. (Like we judge one another on blood. Oh, wait…)
Posted by: Melissa at June 16, 2006 03:25 PM
What gets me is that there’s no stipulation about barrier sex. If I, a bio female, have latex sex with a man who has sex with men, am I at a higher risk than a female who has unprotected sex with lots of /straight/ men? Grrrrrr. I really like donating blood, and think it’s part of my duty as a citizen (much like voting). However, the international travel combined with my love of queer men has kept me out of the pool for a long time, and probably will continue to do so.
Posted by: Lioness at June 16, 2006 04:14 PM
At a science fiction convention I go to regularly, there’ a group called “The Hienlien Society” that tries to get people to donate blood.
I used to donate regularly before I started having sex with men, and it pisses me off that I can’t anymore.
So when the blood donors come by and pester me about it, I tell them “I’m sorry, I can’t donate. The red cross says I’m a dirty faggot, and fucking men disqualifies me.”
The few times I’ve pulled that stunt, they just turned and fled. No response.
Posted by: Josh Jasper at June 23, 2006 08:50 AM
