Let’s say there are two men walking on the street.
They are both physically healthy and have the ?desire to donate blood to the Red Cross.
Although these men are very similar on the surface, one man can donate the blood while the other cannot.
The first man is 45 with a wife and two children.
When he was 24, he was ?incarcerated for eight months in federal prison.
In the year following his incarceration, this man wouldn’t be allowed to ?donate his blood.
But now, 21 years after the fact, he is able to donate his blood.
The second man is also 45, but has never been convicted of a felony.
He has never been ?incarcerated.
He also has a wife and children. When he was 24, he sexually experimented with another man.
He hasn’t had sexual relations with a man in 21 years.
Although he only had ?sexual relations with a man once, he cannot donate blood.
This was what the FDA previously held to be ?legitimate.
Its new proposal allows gay men to donate blood as long as they haven’t had sex with another man in the past year.
With the new proposition in place, the second man on the street could donate blood as well.
I think that this is the ?appropriate path for the FDA to take.
Although it doesn’t ?allow sexually active gay men to partake in donating blood, the safety of blood recipients needs to be the most ?important consideration.
The original ban was ?unfair and extremely ?discriminatory.
Now the ban still exists, but it’s not because men are gay. It’s for practical measures and for safety.
Obviously, I think that this was long overdue, but I don’t think the one-year donation restriction will change much.
It’s not because the ?shorter ban isn’t good enough, it’s because the vast majority of the gay community is sexually involved.
The FDA changed the ban from being identity-structured to practice-structured, which I think is great.
They are no longer discriminating against the gay ?community.
They are protecting the safety of blood recipients by eliminating donations from sexually active gay men.
You might think that the FDA’s decision to still ban sexually active gay men from donating blood is just like the fight for gay marriage rights all over again.
But it isn’t.
The act of donating blood is giving a gift to another ?person who needs it.
It’s not discriminatory ?toward gay people.
It is actually protecting those who need blood.
Without these restrictions, whether it be if you’ve been incarcerated, sexually ?active with another man or even have the flu, the blood wouldn’t be safe for the ?recipient.
People who accept blood are eternally grateful.
But we also have to remember that this appreciation is only possible when the new blood they obtain is safe and ?compatible.
We have to always be? careful.
jlkarl@indiana.edu
