(San Jose State Univ) suspends blood drives, citing FDA ban on donations by gay men

Source: San Jose Mercury News

In a move believed to be the first by a college campus in the nation, San Jose State University President Don Kassing has suspended all campus blood drives because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration bars any man who has had sex with another man from donating blood.

"The FDA's lifetime blood donor deferral affecting gay men violates our non-discrimination policy," said Kassing in an e-mail sent to faculty, staff and students.

The suspension, which is effective immediately, applies to blood drives arranged by employees representing the university as well as blood drives organized by student groups.


Read more: http://origin.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8130671

...I hope there's an almighty clearout of their fellow travelers throughout the bureaucracy. These hatchetmen and women are way overdue to be on the receiving end of a little justice. The FDA is as good a place as any to start.

This has been policy for decades and is supported by the National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association.

There was some justification for it then, given the technology didn't exist to screen donated blood effectively. Twenty years on, that's no longer a justification.

The FDA considered lifting the ban in 2006 (or at least reducing it to twelve months), but pressure from the Administration kept it in place.

They -- hospitals -- don't want the blood.

...recommended lifting the ban. This included the Red Cross, who had opposed lifting it in 2000.

The continuing ban is based on little more than prejudice, especially when you consider that intravenous drug users and heterosexual sex workers are only deferred for 12 months.

Hospitals don't want to be sued and they would be.

The assumption here is that if you are gay, then your blood is tainted. In reality, anyone could be carrying bad blood.

than the rest of the population. It is true anyone can have "bad blood". That is why they question you before they take the blood. They are trying to screen potential bad blood out because the tests aren't perfect. So you don't allow groups which have a significantly higher rate of blood borne disease than other groups.

As shown by the Red Cross, et al wanting the ban lifted.

I quit giving blood because of this bigotry, in solidarity with my gay "brothers." I used to be a VIP Donor and gave every 60 days. No more.

Yet they aren't. If the issue was about real risk, then anyone in the "high risk" category would be excluded. Yet it's only gay people, even those in monogamous relationships, who are banned for life.

As a person who lived in the UK for 20 years, I'm banned from giving blood in the US, due to my risk of carrying vCJD. This is a reasonable ban, in my view, because no effective test for the vCJD transmission vector yet exists. If it did, however, continuing to ban me would be discriminatory.

As for hospitals getting sued, yes they probably would be. People sue hospitals all the time, for less than this. But we can't impose discriminatory policies based on what a few patients or distraught relatives might do, or we'd quickly be back to the days of separating "black" and "white" blood.

There is a critical shortage of blood. Vastly more people die from insufficient supplies of suitable blood than are at risk of contracting HIV from properly screened donated blood, whatever its source.

Gay people are "deferred" for life.

But in mine I am always asked "Have you ever taken IV drugs, even once?" and "Have you ever had sex for money or with someone who has, even once?"

Though perhaps no more enlightened.

However, the article in the OP was about San Jose, California. It is therefore reasonable for me to discuss the situation in California in my response to that OP, no?

So I just thought I would add my opinion even though I don't know about California. I have donated over 100 times in probably six or seven different states so I know a little about the process.

...different states are implementing it's directives differently. The FDA recommends the twelve month deferment of sex workers and IV drug users, yet some states (such as Alabama if I understand you correctly) have imposed lifetime bans.

Thinking about it, it seems it's those states that may have opened themselves to litigation, since they've imposed what may be considered discriminatory bans without FDA or NIH support.

The AMERICAN Red Cross has their guidelines and they do not vary.
http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html

The Bay Area Reporter, in their article on the issue in early '06, indicated that IV drug users and sex workers only had to abstain from their behavior for twelve months to be eligible donors.

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=660

If the Red Cross imposes a lifetime ban on these categories of donors, I'm assuming that other organizations don't.

because of the logical fallacy that they would already be infected because of their "risky" behavior so the "window" would already be closed. They would either be positive or negative.
Personally, I would rather get my blood from a known gay man than a heterosexual man who picks up unknown men on craigslist or in the airport. You know damned well they don't disclose their risky behavior on the questionnaire.

Lots of gays have no idea whether they are poz or not. But they are more likely, as a group, to be poz than hets.

your pushing a bullshit stereotype that's been outdated for DECADES...

You can have promiscuous straight sex with a different partner every night of the week, and that's okay. But if you have a monogamous relationship with someone of the same sex, then your blood is no longer wanted. Even if it can help save lives.

I used to donate blood and have not done so in 18 years. They lost me as a donor when I read the restrictions. I figure until they take everyone's blood, they can quit whining about shortages. Just because someone only has sex with the opposite gender doesn't make their blood good, but making restrictions based on prejudice makes my blood boil.

Same here. I live in northern Virginia. Immediately after 9-11 (sorry to sound like Rudy), I thought about going over to the Canadian Embassy in DC to donate. There were so any donors, though, that the people in charge said that there was no need for any more donors.

heck, I am banned because I lived in England in the early 80s, 25 years ago (I am 33) and they think I might have been exposed to mad cow/CJD. Odd, if I had it, I'd be long dead.

not all gay men have any blood born diseases

not all straight men are free from them

If you reduce the amount of blood available you're not punishing the people who make the policies, you're punishing sick people who need the blood.

when moral stands have to be made at whatever cost to change obscene practices. Just saying that it is wrong isn't enough--who is going to listen? Actions speak louder than words--perhaps when the blood gets to critical lows and stays there, then the powers that be will revisit their decision to discriminate against gay men.

Not when public health is at stake.

How many innocent lives are you willing to sacrifice for this? How many family members? When there's less blood available innocents will suffer because of it.

This deserves to be protested but not at the cost of the health of innocent people. If the people being excluded were being directly and substantially harmed then it might be a different story. But they're not. I don't mean to belittle the social and psychological harm that this policy causes. But the harm is not as substantial as the potential harm to a person that is bleeding to death because people are boycotting blood drives. And loss of blood does not discriminate, it's victims are both gay and straight.

I'm sorry, but this kind of protest is an unethical lashing out at innocents, and it most likely will achieve nothing because of that.

the president of San Jose State doesn't want his school to be a part of a homophobic ban against gay men donating blood

how about directing your ire against the feds who put the ban in place in the first place

they're the ones keeping donors away

Even though I never ate beef.

A reasonable precaution nevertheless, I think.

If not, they should be permitted to donate blood.

...so perhaps it is warranted that they are restricted from giving blood. The university is wrong here as blood drives save lives and not having them will lead to unnecessary deaths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/nyregion/02hiv.html?ref=nyregion

First I was banned for my participating in the first Gulf war. I am still banned and I guess it may be for life because I lived in Europe in the late 80's and early 90's. Yes, the mad cow disease scare. I still go when ever I see a blood drive, well at least once a year I go to see if the policy is changed. So far no.

Raebrek!!!