Don’t endanger all to appease a few

OPINION:

The Food and Drug Administration is currently reviewing and rewriting the process of accepting blood donations from gay men. The various supporters of this review say the current process is based on stigma, not science. There have always been periods where blood supplies were low, but today’s levels aren’t so concerning that we should place the entire blood supply system at risk just to appease a segment of society. 

The new process reduces the period of time a man must be sexually celibate from one year to three months. That is not enough time to act as a safeguard. The new process has no way of verifying or determining truthfulness. 

Those donating under the current rule are demonstrating the highest regard for the protection of recipients by limiting their exposure long enough to participate. Let’s not forget what happened during the 1980s and ’90s, when patients received infected blood during medical procedures. Advocates for the new process apparently want to ignore the lives and deaths of Ryan White and Arthur Ashe, who received contaminated blood, or the times when the U.S. blood supply was so contaminated that 50% of hemophiliacs and 90% of severe hemophiliacs were infected. 

As a former homeless person, I remember donating blood as often as allowed so I could get money to buy food. Due to the lack of donors, the very basic questionnaire never asked about sex partners — so there were many HIV- and AIDS-infected drug users who donated and later died.

At a time when drug use is at an all-time high, addict numbers are up and there are a number of emerging viruses predominantly affecting gay men, we should not be changing the rules for blood donation. The fact that there are drugs that make HIV undetectable doesn’t mean the disease doesn’t exist. It’s regrettable that those pushing for the change are making unfounded claims of discrimination.

GREG RALEIGH
Washington