Considering the high risk of transmiting HIV, should sexually active gay men be allowed to donate blood?

Tylor Brand

Our need for blood too great to exclude healthy gay men

First off, let's discuss what is not at issue here ÷ gay rights or prejudice. I gave blood a few months ago and had to face the same blistering interrogation as anyone ("You aren't such scum that you're using this as a free AIDS test, are you? Would you please put back everything you stole while I was out of the room," etc.), but I realized that these were merely means to keep us safe from the transmission of blood-borne pathogens and not brash effrontery about my possible intravenous drug usage and other such lifestyle choices.

And it's not like they are blindly exacting a vendetta ÷ the statistics are pretty grim in comparison to the straight community. Approximately 7 percent of gay men have AIDS or are HIV-positive, and shockingly, 14 percent of all gay black men (52 percent of cases for gay men). And overall, the black community suffers much more, representing 38 percent of AIDS cases in general despite being only 12 percent of the population.

This does present pretty good evidence for the other side, but it's not absolute, and here's why: The facilities allow people who've had unprotected straight sex if it was over 6 months prior (it takes about 6 months to show up) to give blood, which is also a definite risk (albeit a much, much smaller one). So why not allow the same leeway for gay men? The virus will show up at about the same time, and if there's any worry, just extend the unprotected sex clause to eight months for a more definite reading.

I do realize this would increase the possibility of contraction through missed lab tests if someone did have HIV (105 people contracted it by blood transfusions last year), but if the blood is thoroughly screened, there should be about the same risk.

At this time, there is a definite need for blood since the generosity levels involving our personal bodily fluids stay pretty minimal most of the time, barring bouts of drunken gambling, national emergencies or compulsory bleedings at one's workplace to build morale (i.e., boost company image).

Anything can help, and to keep responsible, healthy gays from donating blood could risk lives of those who might need it.

Caitlin Hall

Make blood donation policy more exclusive, not less so

Friday, Oct. 11, 2002: A date that will live in infamy. I am taking a "conservative" stance. But before the fabric of all time and space comes unraveled and the universe annihilates itself, let me explain why.

I am a liberal, yes, and I actively support gay rights. However, this issue has little to do with politics and much to do with science.

It is a fact (according to government statistics, anyway) that 8 percent of the sexually active gay men in this country are HIV-positive, a proportion that is astronomically higher than those of heterosexuals and gay women. That alone qualifies them as a high-risk group.

It is also a fact that the HIV screening provided during blood donation is not an error-proof process: Though the amount is nearly negligible, a few pints of HIV-tainted blood make their way into the blood bank each year and are passed onto others via blood transfusions.

Put these two facts together. We have a process with a margin of error directly related to the proportion of people in the donor pool who are HIV-positive. And we have a potential group of donors ÷ gay men ÷ whose probability of having HIV is much higher than that of the general population. Translation: Allowing sexually active gay men to donate blood would almost certainly increase the incidence of transfusion-linked HIV transmission.

Statistically speaking, it simply does not make sense to add sexually active gay men to the donor pool.

You may have noticed, however, that I said the issue had little to do with politics, not that it was completely unrelated. The real problem with allowing sexually active gay men to donate blood has nothing to do with their sexual orientation ÷ it is a consequence of their involvement in high-risk sexual behaviors, which the actual FDA policy says nothing about.

Concerns that this is a discriminatory policy are well founded. However, the solution isn't to allow gay men to donate; it is to make the policy more inclusive, requiring all donors to testify that they have not engaged in high-risk activities such as anal sex since the outbreak of AIDS. Though this is a painful conclusion in the midst of a serious donor shortage, it is the only one that is both scientifically and ethically justifiable.