So recently my girlfriend told me that there was a blood drive at her school, and that one lesbian girl was boycotting giving blood because gay men were prohibited from giving blood.
The American Red Cross is very careful in screening who can and who can't donate blood - prohibiting not only gays, but recent immigrants from certain countries, people who have recently gotten tattoes, and users of certain drugs, among others.
I was surprised to see just how far reaching the restriction on gays was, however, prohibiting any "male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once" from donating.
Is this precaution justified or is it going too far?
Certainly anyone who contracted HIV in 1977 would be aware of it (if not deceased) by now, and of course it's not only gays that can contract the disease - if they wanted to go purely by the numbers, they would outlaw all African Americans from donating (African Americans account "more than half" of all new HIV infections, in comparison to to 35% accounted for by homosexual males). Then of course, there's the fact that all blood is screened for diseases before moving on to its recipient anyway.
The Harvard School of Business newsletter ran an interesting article on the topic, which also brings up the ineligibility of people from certain African countries.
And the final question: is this worthy of protest? My girlfriend made the argument that boycotting the blood drive was inane because the only thing it accomplished was hurting the people the program was designed to help - those in need of blood transfusions. Of course, it could also be argued that by instituting this policy, The Red Cross themselves are doing the same thing (and on a much larger scale than a boycott would). It does seem a bit wrong-headed, especially in a time when the Red Cross claims to be in desperate need of blood donors. What would be a more effective, and less harmful, method of protest? |
