This week at work, signs I've seen before began appearing in our common areas inviting all employees to participate in a Blood Drive. Those employees who donated more than a certain amount in a given time period were given a half-day's vacation for their participation, and everyone who gives blood receives some company swag, cookies and a drink.
Last month at my gym, the local blood bank was raffling away a three-day cruise for people who gave blood on site at the gym.
These are lovely, creative ideas designed to encourage citizens to take part in an important civic responsibility: giving blood. One problem, though, I'm legally prohibited from taking part, and if you're reading this newspaper, chances are good you are too.
In the case of my workplace's blood drive, I was particularly upset. Time off is a valuable commodity in today's busy world. Something like that has real value, and in a very simple and direct way, I was being excluded simply because I'm gay. It's not because my blood is at a higher risk of carrying HIV. I can say with absolute certainty that I am empirically more aware of my current HIV status than any straight man in my company. I make it my business to know, in fact.
The questionnaire donors fill out before they give blood doesn't ask if they've slept with prostitutes (although actual prostitutes and intravenous drug users are the company gay men keep on the banned list), or how many sexual partners they've had, or what their safe sex practices are. It doesn't ask about tattoos or piercings. It simply says that if you are a man, and have slept with another manâ┚¬â€Âeven once since 1977â┚¬â€Âyou are permanently banned from giving blood in the United States.
It is federally mandated discrimination. The really frustrating part is that everyone seems to agree except the US Food and Drug Administration, which administers the nation's blood supply. I understand that they were stung by AIDS in the early 1980s (who wasn't?), but continuing the ban on gay men donating blood not only upsets gay men, it confounds the blood industry as well.
As early as 2006, the American Red Cross, which is responsible for a lot of the collection that takes place, announced that the ban on gay men was â┚¬Å”medically and scientifically unwarranted.â┚¬Â Two other major blood centers followed suit. Since that time the FDA has reiterated the ban three separate times, each time citing public health as the reason. This in spite of the fact that every milliliter of blood is tested for HIV and other contaminants before it is ever released into the blood supply.
In 2010, Senator John Kerry and 17 other senators sent a letter to the agency opposing the ban. The agency announced it would revisit the issue, but in June a government advisory board voted to uphold the restriction. Again, it only cited â┚¬Ëœpublic health' as their reasoning.
I find that most straight people aren't even aware that gay men are legally prohibited from giving blood. My delightful friend and colleague, Helene, expressed outrage when I told her about the issue, as she was heading off to give blood, dreams of an extra half-day's vacation dancing in her head.
â┚¬Å”Well then I won't give!â┚¬Â she said, in solidarity with my plight and that of my many gay coworkers. [Full disclosure: I work for a venerable and historically significant American company, which has consistently ranked at the top of the list as a gay-friendly employer for more than a decade. Let me not misstate: I work in a respectful, inclusive environment where the contributions of gays and lesbians are valued and highlighted. It is comfortably my favorite thing about where I work.]
While I loved the hell out of her for saying so, I immediately knew that to be the exact wrong outcome. I told her that the best thing she could do was to tell other people about the ban and what she thought of it, including the blood drive attendants. Look, we have a woefully low blood supply as it is. I wouldn't want it on my hands for that supply getting even one unit smaller.
In fact, I'd like to do my part.
