Gay men who have had sexual contact with other men, even once, since 1977 are not eligible to give blood.

Drawn by: Margaret Ringler

In the days leading up to M-A’s annual blood drive, students prepared to give blood by filling out permission forms as advised by the regular announcements during SSR.  While these announcements warned about conditions for those who had recently visited malaria-infested countries, they neglected to mention one curious criterion for eligibility: sexual orientation.

According to the Red Cross website, if you “are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977,” you are ineligible to donate blood. My initial reaction to this statement was rage against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for excluding gay men from the donation process because decades ago, when knowledge was minimal, they were thought to be closely tied to the source of HIV/AIDS.

In the late ’70s, the mentality of free love and risky sexual conduct allowed HIV/AIDS to run rampant in the gay community. Gay men were less concerned with using condoms, and as more men tested positive, unique strains of the virus appeared. The current tests for donated blood screen for blood type and disease, but are not fine-tuned for these unique strains of HIV/AIDS. Although adequate tests exist, applying them to every drop of donated blood would cost the Red Cross too much money.

For this reason, the FDA is acting with precaution by barring the entire high-risk community of sexually active gay men.  Interestingly, none of this information is stated on the Red Cross website although it is mirrored in the statement that declares “persons who were born in or lived in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger and Nigeria since 1977 cannot be blood donors,” because these populations are susceptible to a unique strain known as Type O. There is a whole section devoted to explaining Type O.

Furthermore, the site states that “It is possible that the tests used to screen donated blood may someday be improved so that they detect Type O HIV. If so, these donation restrictions may be removed.” It says nothing of this nature in regards to the restrictions on sexually active gay men, which prompts to me believe the Red Cross may be biased.  If it wishes to remain neutral, I would suggest that it issue a similar statement for HIV tests for gay men, or retract the current one of Type O.

Although the medical reasoning behind barring all sexually active gay men is sound, the particular wording of the requirement on the site seems unnecessarily inflammatory.  Instead of prohibiting all gay men who have had sex since 1977 (a large portion of the population, I would assume), the criteria should merely read “You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.”

The key to keeping the requirements neutral would be to allow people to figure out what puts them at risk for becoming infected with HIV.  The Red Cross already depends on donors to be honest about their exposure, and people who want to donate blood generally aren’t set on spreading infectious disease among the sick, and so will tell the truth about their HIV status.

Instead of barring this specific population of people, and leaving the sexually active gay men who are perfectly healthy with a bitter sentiment, the Red Cross should lift the requirement and suggest that high-risk people submit to the specialized HIV tests before donating blood. If they cannot afford the tests, unfortunately, there is not much the Red Cross can do. However, if a gay man has the resources to get tested for unique strains of HIV and comes out negative, the Red Cross should not take away his right to donate blood.