John Kerry: Outdated, unnecessary ban on blood donations should be lifted

[racaulk]

It’s more than a little hard for most people to believe that federal law today bans gay men from donating blood. But it’s true; in fact, any man who has had a sexual relationship with another man, even once, since 1977, is banned -- for life -- from donating blood. It’s a cruel reality that I thought warranted a close examination of the justifications.

As it turns out, not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban. The three largest blood donation organizations in our country -- the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, and AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks) -- all agree calling the ban "medically and scientifically unwarranted." The American Medical Association supports modifying the restriction. And this week, I was joined by more than a dozen other United States Senators in calling on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review and modify this discriminatory ban.

This arcane policy originated in 1983 at the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis. At that time, HIV was not well understood, accurate detection methods were not yet developed, and transmission was incorrectly attributed exclusively to the gay community. This was the era when the term "GRIDS" was the coin of the realm -- literally reinforcing the dangerous illusion that this was a ’gay disease’ every time the word was spoken.

But over the past 27 years, times have clearly changed. We know so much more. There is now a greater understanding of the high-risk behaviors associated with HIV contraction which is incorporated into the donor screening process. We’ve made dramatic technological improvements in HIV detection, and we’ve got mandated testing of all donated blood by two separate, highly accurate tests. A law that was once medically justifiable is today simply discrimination that needs to end.

<---snip--->

Link: http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=opinion&sc=guest_opinions&sc2=news&sc3=&id=103015

Thank you, Sen. Kerry!

:applause:

[HBravo]

1. Don't forget people with tattoo's. nt

[FreeState]

3. I dont have a problem with the standard 12 month waiting period for tats and piericings

If your gay and have sex its not 12 months its for your whole life.

http://www.americasblood.org/go.cfm?do=page.view&pid=2


Can I donate blood?
You will probably meet the medical requirements to donate blood if you are:

In good health
At least 17 years old (In some states, 16-year-olds may donate. There is no upper age limit.)
Weigh at least 110 pounds
What are some of the reasons for deferral?
Anemia (low hematocrit)
Blood Pressure (high or low)
Body Piercing
Chagas' Disease
Cold or Flu
Hepatitis
HIV/AIDS
Infection
International Travel
Organ/Tissue Transplants
Pregnancy
Sexually Transmitted Disease

I'm taking medications. Can I still donate blood?

Many medications are acceptable. Consult your physician or ask your community blood center medical staff if you have questions about your eligibility to donate.

What if I have a tattoo or body piercing?

U.S. health advisers voted to continue a policy that requires people who have been pierced or tattooed to put off donating blood for a year after the procedure, but said those who have received acupuncture can safely give blood.

[2Design]

2. money from donated blood charges over price to hospital and pays the head a mid six figure salary -

why bother - there must be a way around this

[jeremyfive]

4. More Discrimination from Reagan-Bush-Bush

Nothing but fear and hatred comes from the damnable Republicans.

[Toasterlad]

5. There Are TONS of People On DU Who Will Defend This Ban To the Death

Because gay men can get AIDS, we should be automatically eliminated from the donor pool. Never mind that all the blood donated to the Red Cross gets tested for HIV. All teh gays has the AIDS!

Meanwhile, I just gave blood about a week ago (in direct defiance of discriminatory policy!), and was once again struck by what an unpleasant experience the Red Cross workers make it. Despite setting up an appointment, I still almost always have to wait a good 20 minutes to get serviced (despite having four tables going this time, they did not designate one for drop-ins and keep the rest for the appointments, but rather just took everyone as they came, appointment or not), and received the usual brusque treatment from both the woman who did the immediate check in, and the phlebotomist who took my history and drew my blood. Now, I don't expect to have my dick sucked for doing what I believe every healthy person is morally responsible to do, and I understand that performing repetitive and dull tasks over and over can cause you to become rather businesslike at best, rude at worst, with most settling for curt, but I AM donating a life-giving substance and receiving nothing in return. I don't think it's too much to ask to make the experience as reasonably pleasant as possible. Yet, every time I give blood, which is four times a year, I get the same terse treatment. Not to mention the annoyance of being forced to pretend to read the same literature over and over every time I donate.

I appreciate the efforts to keep the blood supply clean, truly. But someone needs to put some thought into how to improve the process for long-time donors who are more than familiar with the process. All I need to know when I go in is if there are any new restrictions on donors, and all they need to know if there have been any changes to my qualifications.

[t0dd]

6. Does Kerry still oppose same-sex marriage?

I know he originally voted against DOMA, but he needs to come around on this issue.

[offog]

7. Good for you folks!

I'm really glad someone is pushing for a re-think on the policy banning gays from donating blood. I've read enough articles about how these days, young straight people are at the most risk of contracting AIDS, and how casual unprotected sex is rampant on college campuses.