On Tuesday, December 23, the United States Food and Drug Administration announced its plans to lift its ban on blood donation by gay and bisexual men. The restriction, while previously a lifetime ban, will now be solely given to men who have had sex with another man in the past year.
The history of the AIDS epidemic is a relatively short one. Just over thirty years ago, in 1981, the first known case of AIDS was reported, sparking a global epidemic. The initial cases were discovered among gay men. Early on, AIDS was untreatable, feared, and largely fatal. In 1983, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implemented a ban on gay and bisexual men from donating blood, hoping to decrease the risk of contracting HIV through blood transfusions. Since then, medicine and sex education have led to far lower cases of HIV and AIDS in the United States. Research shows that lifting the lifetime ban on blood donations would cause little risk to the supply.
The relevance of this new policy to Fieldston is clear; as an institution that both holds regular blood drives and has an active and vocal queer community, Fieldston is undoubtedly connected to this controversial issue.
Where does our community see these policies in terms of the discrepancy between logicality and discrimination? Evan Weinstein (VI), head of the Blood Drive Club and organizer of these events, strongly believes that the FDA policies, past and present, were not archaic or homophobic, but based on concrete reasons.
“There are very real, important statistics that make a strong argument for preventing men who have sex with men from donating blood. The ban on sexually active gay men from donating blood is based on the extremely high HIV+ prevalence among men who have sex with men… there are reasons for old policy that need to be considered. It is my firm belief that the FDA is not a bigoted organization.”
Noah Tattelman-Parnes (IV), who recently came out at the QSA assembly, shared a different perspective on the policies as a member of the gay community.
“I definitely don’t know all the facts, but what I do know is that although the change is certainly a step in the right direction, being celibate for a year before being able to give blood is probably pretty difficult. The ban might have made sense when it was put into place in the ’80s, when no one really knew about HIV/AIDS and it just seemed that homosexual males were getting the virus, but now that we know that it’s not only a ‘gay disease,’ the ban seems a bit unnecessary because it’s possible to test for HIV…the ban just keeps the stigmatization of gay men alive.”
Carl Anhalt, Fieldston math teacher and openly gay member of the QSA, shared an opinion similar to that of Noah.
“This is not a satisfactory change, since it effectively still bans all Men who have Sex with Men (MSM), including those in monogamous relationships, or those who take every precautionary measure against HIV transmission like using condoms or taking Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP). The term “sexual contact” is also far too vague, since HIV and other STIs are generally transmitted through contact of specific bodily fluids…there are forms of “sexual contact” that are much lower risk in terms of fluid exposures, and even lower risk when the earlier precautions are implemented. Ultimately it is the specific high risk behaviors that should be regulated against blood donation (for example unprotected sex, or sex while under the influence of drugs or alcohol), not the more blanket identity of all MSM.”
Anya Auerbach (VI), one of the leaders of the QSA, agrees with Noah and Mr. Anhalt that the policies in many ways unfairly generalize and stigmatize gay men, but also sees the validity in the policies, especially due to the less than 100% accuracy of HIV tests.
“One has to consider the very un-PC reality that, as a whole, men who have sex with men are more likely to have HIV, and that, although its rare, the diagnostic test can give a false positive. I’m definitely glad that the blanket ban was lifted, as it was completely illogical. At a gut level, I am not satisfied with these changes. But I am also cautious of allowing the fight for social justice to make us blind to medical risks.”
Beyond their political correctness or lack thereof, what will be the effects of these new policies, both nationally and among the Fieldston community? Evan Weinstein is excited about the national change, but doesn’t think Fieldston will be affected.
“As for the effect on the country, it will add about 300,000 pints, which is a slight increase but a symbolic one. This is a good thing and I am very happy with the decision. As for Fieldston, I do not think it will have a significant effect. The only people who can now donate blood (and previously were not able to) are members of the Fieldston community who are male, and have had sex with a man but not in the last year. I cannot imagine this is a large portion of our community.”
As a whole, the effects that these new policies have both on Fieldston and the nation as a whole are complex. There exists a debate about the correctness of the ban when accounting for both medical considerations and issues of gay rights, and it is important that we take into consideration each of the unique perspectives found in our Fieldston community when facing issues of this nature.
