Should the Red Cross continue the policy of lifetime bans on blood donations by gay men? What is the reasoning behind the ban? In favor of lifting such a ban? Would your position differ if the Red Cross were a public (government funded) organization as opposed to a private one?
Suggested completion date: October 17, 2008
Posts
18 comments:
EDDIE. PRATT
10/24/08
BIOTHICS-SCENARIO #6
On Feb 23, 2007 the FDA restated its position stating that they will continue to review new scientific evidences as it becomes available, and they may revisit the issue sometime in the future. The Red Cross, ABC and the rest of the blood banking community were disappointed in the FDA’s decision. As of Sept 09,2008 FDA restricted the ban on gay men blood donors.
I do not believe the Red Cross should ban gay men from giving blood donations. I assume the reasoning behind the ban has to do with the fact that gay men are prone to AIDS. The whole thing is completely ridiculous! When AIDS first came out people panicked and acted like fools. People thought you could get AIDS by shaking someone’s hand or kissing. Some people even went so far as to say only gay men could get the disease. This isn’t 1981 we are knowledgeable people now. I could see there being a ban in 1981 when AIDS first became public, but not now when we know that anyone can get AIDS. My position would not change if the Red Cross were privately funded or funded by the government. Blood banks need as many donations as they can get. I can’t image first of all invading a donors privacy by asking if they were gay and then not allowing them to donate if they were. I think it would be a shame if people start dying because of lack of blood bank supply when there are healthy gay men willing to donate.
Amanda Rhoades
Eddie-
It's sad that it's 2008 and the FDA still won't allow gay men to donate blood. You would think if they brought in a recent AIDS/HIV test proving they do not have the disease and that they are practicing safe sex everything would be ok. I can understand being cautious.
Amanda Rhoades
Amanda
I agree with your view, but the government has to play big
brother. Atleast regulate for the
sake of mankind. There is always a
need for blood.
ep
I feel that the safety of the blood supply is the paramount concern. I think that the discrimination isn't against a group, but against a risky behavior. They also ask if you are an intravenous drug user. Perhaps a more appropriate question is not whether a man is homosexual, but have you engaged in unprotected sex in the past few years. That falls right in line with IV drug users. Are you engaging in behavior which might jeapordize the blood supply? If so they should not be allowed to donate. The same question should be asked of women.
Greg Dawson
I personally dont feel that a ban is necessarily going to make for a safer blood supply. A homosexual person is just as likely to contract blood borne disease as a heterosexual person. I think that it is in poor taste and not ethical to to link gay people in with groups that are risky such as prostitutes who have a much increased risk for diseases like HIV than the typical person because of the number of partners that they encounter. I think with all the advances in technology and the ability to detect disease like HIV within 7 days after exposure only adds to the arguement that the ban should be recinded. Regardless of it being a private or government institution, descrimination because of sexual oreintation is illegal and it should not matter either way.
M Longtin
In response to Amanda:
I agree with the view that the government is playing big brother. Kind of assinine that they have laws stating that descrimintion is illegal for employment but they turn a blind eye to the act of descrimination when it comes to blood donations when they are in so much demand, and they have the technology to detect the virus after 7 days...seems silly to me.
ML
This is incredibly disgusting to me. I understand the “risk factors” that gay men face, however don’t straight men face these same risk factors? I think that if there is going to be discriminations or “precautions” against any group of peoples then it should be across the board and for all groups. If gay men have to prove they are not HIV positive or that they have not had unprotected sex recently then so should the 20 year old college girl. It is discrimination against gay men, no matter how you word it. We live in an age now, which we KNOW that AIDS is a disease that can affect anyone. I understand the precautions that the American Red Cross is trying to take, however I do not think that it is fair to come right out and ask, “Excuse me sir, are you a homosexual? Because in being so this means that you sleep around with many men and most likely are HIV positive, so thanks for the offer to give us perfectly good blood, but no thanks.” Rather than just requesting a blood sample before actually allowing them to make a blood donation. In reading the statistics that were listed it is pretty scary knowing that out of every 625,000 donations there is a “slip” and one gets past the screeners. If they were to test EVERYONE then this would not happen and there would be much more blood to supply people.
Kayla Parent
ML---
I did not know that you could detect HIV within 7 days of exposure. That is amazing and really! helped your argument. It makes me just a little more annoyed that they actually do this. :)
Kayla Parent
Devin, I cannot take a side on this case, because I cannot ignore the data and equally disturbing discrimination. Please read on.
Scientific American, November 2008 issue features a special report “HIV 25 years Later” (pg 68-76). One statistic in the beginning of the magazine is not pretty, “A grim report in August from the CDC... The CDC concluded that it had been underestimating the number of new HIV infection in U.S. by 40 percent annually for the past 10 years or more. More than half of all new infections were in gay and bisexual men; (pg 10).
Another words at least 50% of HIV population is gay and bisexual men. Let me make myself very clear. I am not suggesting profiling or discrimination! However, we cannot ignore the data. Data don’t lie nor have emotion. With a such controversy Red Cross decision, my guess is the supporting data, evidences, evoke the policy makers to make decision.
I completely agree the argument, "The question should not be, 'Are you homosexual,' [but] 'What risk factors have you engaged in?'" Clearly all people agree that the wording need to be changed... not discriminating.
JWK
I agree with the Red Cross. I have nothing against gays but if they lift this more poeple will get aids. That is not worth it. They can find other ways of doing nice things. I wouldn't want blood if it had a higher chance of giving me a desease that I would never be able to get. They ethical board needs not to look at who's feelings they are hurting on this one but who it could hurt.
Michelle Camping
11-15-2008
I agree with Greg, its the safety of the people and gays should see that. They choose a life that can lead to harmful things. (Im not saying others don't) But would you play russian rolet on the blood you would resieve?
I could understand the Red Cross ban on gay men donating blood had this been 20 years ago when little was known about the AIDS virus, but it seems a little ignorant now. I am always hearing about a shortage at the blood banks, well there are a lot of gay people in this world who are not allowed to donate, so maybe if they could there wouldn’t be such a shortage. I think the ban should be lifted because there are very reliable tests that they do on the blood supply to make sure it is not contaminated. I also don’t understand why they are singling gay people out when there are plenty of heterosexuals having unprotected sex who are at just as much of a risk.
Erin
Regardless of the type or organization I do not believe it is entirely fair to single out gay men and not let them donate blood. I think that with them trying to limit and prevent and cases on infecting HIV to others through transfusions is very good. I think if a gay man wants to donate their blood they should be able to but maybe they should have to go through a different process. Maybe a series of questions (and yes I know people can lie) but after that then they would be able to limit who actually can donate their blood and then their blood can be tested as normal. I think with a lack of blood donations they should be putting anyone who would like to donate into consideration. I would love to donate blood and have tried several times but I am anemic. I was born with and continue to have it through my life. Knowing that I can't donate really stinks because I would like to, to know that you can possibly help people and blood banks are always looking for more. I just think maybe they should allow gay men to donate but put them through a different screening process.
Commenting on A.Rhoades
I couldn't agree more! I meant to say in mine how anyone is just as prone to AIDS as gay men but I forgot (and you did). It is completely true and the fact that they will turn away and deny a gay man just because that is what he is, what about a heterosexual man or woman who may have AIDS and may not be aware of it?!?
with any donation of blood they should ask what risk factors have you taken. If you have taken some then I don't believe you should be allowed to donate blood. It is not secret that homosexuals are taking risks in their relationships and that they are more likely to obtain aids than lets say a heterosexual couple. I think the Red Cross is taking the right prevention in not accepting the blood. There is a major aids outbreak and one slight mistake could lead to another person obtaining the virus. So erring on the side of safety would be the way to go in this situation.
Joe King
Amanda,
The red cross refuses a lot of people from giving blood.If you have a cold they might not let you give blood. My point is if you are any sort of risk, whether it is for disease or drugs, you can be denied. I think if we were to the point that people were dying because there was no blood then the red cross may lift the ban.
Joe King
Although gay men must feel like they are being discriminated againist I think the ban should still stand. Initially what lead to this ban was that of gay men and their relation to testing HIV positive. If HIV was less serious then yes things such as discrimination could be taken in to consideration. I would rather have the peace of mind versus hurting people's feelings. I think that gay men should consider this factor and not think of themselves and how unfair it is to them. They are many lives at stake and past experiences with gay men and HIV have lead to this ban.
Shundeen Cadman
Post a Comment