Earlier this term, activist and playwright Larry Kramer visited campus as a Montgomery Fellow, sharing his experiences of leadership in the LGBTQ community. Having fought against the stigmas associated with HIV/AIDS for three decades, Kramer noted that a writer catches more flies with vinegar than with honey. This is my vinegar.
I first explored giving blood during my sophomore year at Dartmouth, finally deeming myself mentally and physically ready to join in this selfless act of social responsibility. After mentioning my decision to a group of friends, one quickly noted that I was ineligible because I was gay. Although I have been monogamous for the last two and a half years, just one partner would be enough to disqualify me from donating. I could certainly lie and give blood anyway, but the idea of doing so felt dirty and subversive. I instead volunteered at the blood drive, though I was disappointed that my participation was limited to carrying the blood of my moral superiors from their lounges to a central collection table. It was there that I was first able to read the eligibility forms myself, to feast my eyes on the words of my figurative oppressors. Afterwards, each successive bag of blood seemed to scream of my inferiority.
Current FDA guidelines restrict donations from any man who has had sex with another man since 1977, a rough estimate for when HIV became prevalent in the United States. At the height of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s and early 1990s, such a policy helped to curb the spread of what was, at that time, a latent and undetectable virus.
Consequently, men who have sex with men — or “MSM” as the FDA calls them — are lumped into a single, marginalized “high-risk” category, ignoring inherent differences in sexual behavior and experiences among those within the gay and bisexual population (Kramer says there are too many of us to be called a “community”). These restrictions serve only to reinforce the prevalent stigmas against homosexual men in American society. The FDA should instead determine risks based on a donor’s sexual history and behaviors, not his or her orientation.
Current HIV tests process blood with nearly 100 percent accuracy and can detect the presence of the virus within nine to 11 days after infection, a far shorter period than those of earlier procedures. Some relatively unexplored procedures of donor pretesting could further reduce the risk of collecting blood containing the HIV virus, regardless of a donor’s sexual orientation.
Of course the LGBTQ community is still reeling from the effects of the epidemic. Some Americans are unaware that they are HIV positive, and those that are aware do not always have access to treatment. It would be foolish not to recognize that HIV /AIDS still poses a risk to homosexual men as well as heterosexuals. Still, the current restrictions are antiquated and prevent many potential donors from giving blood within a medically advanced system that has the power to effectively screen donations and minimize the risks to transfusion recipients. As summarized by a student in the U. Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, “Under the blanket ban, one is presumed guilty of risky behavior and communicable disease simply by being gay.”
My blood is as good as anyone else’s. It carries oxygen and nutrients as it courses through my veins, bringing energy and life to a mind that can only hope that one day my rights in this country will not be contingent on who I love. I am not advocating a boycott of blood drives, which undoubtedly save countless lives and illustrate some of the most admirable elements of human nature. My best friend’s sister, who was hit by a truck, is alive today because of blood transfusions. Instead, I am asking that we look beyond what has existed in search of what is right. Regulations that worked 30 years ago do not necessarily work now. Only consistent and honest revisiting of the institutions that govern this country will enable our daily lives to align with our society’s ostensible values of freedom, equality and justice.