Dear FDA, I'll just take my blood elsewhere

TNG reader J. Clarence Flanders submits this piece.

This morning I received an email from the college where I work that went out to everyone at the institution reminding them the school is hosting a blood drive, and encouraging us to donate blood if we could. In addition to reminding us about the event, the email went on to inform us of all the benefits to donating blood, such as the fact that each donation of blood goes on to save on average three lives. I tossed the email in the trash.

I remember in college I was told if I wanted to donate blood—which is a noble cause—that I should just lie about it, when they asked me if I had ever had sex with men. And I did, because I felt the nobility of the act outweighed the stupidity of the discrimination. But the nurse did not find a vein, so I ended up not giving blood anyway—which is good because I hate needles.

I left the university gym where the blood drive took place and decided then and there that I would never lie about it again, if the opportunity came up. It seemed ridiculous to me that in order to do the right thing I would have to lie about who I was to do it.

"If you're a gay male who has been in a monogamous relationship for 30 years, you're still considered a greater risk [to the blood pool] than if you're a promiscuous heterosexual who has had hundreds of partners for 30 years." —Mark Segal, editor of the Philadelphia Gay News

The above quote, which I found in an article on MSNBC's website, articulated my frustration with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy perfectly. The policy, for those that don't know, says men who have sex with men since 1977 cannot donate blood, because they—we—are a high risk demographic. And while that is true, sadly, such a blanket policy only perpetuates the ideology that, according to David Hauslaib of Queerty In-Depth and quoted in the MSNBC article, sees "gay men as walking AIDS incubators."

With the rates as high as they are for queer men of color, I am fortunate not to have contracted HIV or any other STI. It isn't a fact that I gloat about, but it is something I am grateful for (partly because I have a hard time swallowing pills, so the idea of a medicine cocktail does not sit well at all). So I find it extremely insulting and frustrating that in the eyes of the FDA I am assumed to have an illness, even though they test the blood anyway.

Not to mention the sheer fact of (heterosexual) privilege that exists for a straight man, who could very well be a contemporary Casanova, with as many sexual partners as stars in the heavens, and still walk up and give blood, no questions asked (besides the myriad of questions about recent vacation spots, body art, drug use, etc.). They are given the benefit-of-doubt with regard to their status.

Somehow the FDA managed to scramble up enough shaky logic to say they are not being discriminatory with a straight face, by stating the fact that people who have used intravenous drugs or been paid for sex are also excluded. However, that just infuriates me more because it now puts me in a demographic of people with whom I have absolutely nothing in common, not to mention those are actual actions that have been committed rather than actions assumed on the part of the individual.

I know of other queer people who have gone about this more constructively than I have. Many of them volunteer to man the tables or get the food, or in some cases just lie because they know what the policy is for and know that they do not have the virus. I, however, am sick and tired of being sick and tired when it comes to this issue, because this is outright discrimination based on the assumption that gay people as a given are more connected to the virus than others. And that kind of ideology is exactly what stalled treatment when the epidemic first broke out.

At best, the FDA is trying to keep the public safe by employing the "justifiable discrimination" routine. At worst, we have a case of a federal agency exercising undue influence in continuing an ideology based in past hysteria about AIDS.