The FDA is about to implement a new restriction on sperm donors: gays who have had sex at any time during the past 5 years are ineligible. The American Red Cross currently has an even more onerous restriction on blood donors: any, "male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977."
I don't think the Red Cross is homophobic, but rather than taking a principled stand (and also ensuring a larger pool of donors), the Red Cross leadership believes that they must kow-tow to the homophobia of others in order to maintain confidence in the nation's blood supply.
The medical justification is that gays have an "increased risk of HIV/AIDS." According to the CDC, 48% of all HIV/AIDS cases ever diagnosed in the US resulted from homosexual contact, as compared to 16% from heterosexual contact. For new diagnoses (2003) however, homosexual contact was responsible for 42%, while heterosexual contact is up to 31%.
We could, however, choose different statistical groupings. Black Americans accounted for 40% of cumulative HIV/AIDS cases, and 50% of new cases. People aged 35-44 accounted for 39% of HIV/AIDS cumulative cases, and 42% of new cases. People living in the District of Columbia had a new infection rate 12 times the national average, and 5 times the rate of the next worst state or territorty.
...and then, of course, we could just test all donors for HIV/AIDS.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Why test for AIDS when you can just discriminate?
Posted by Dr. Strangelove at 12:35 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I have a medical question here: is the process of artificial insemination vulnerable to transmitting AIDS/HIV at all? Would the sperm itself be contaminated? I'm totally ignorant on this. Perhaps a lurking medical professional could enlighten us.
Regardless of the answer, it seems obvious to me that testing is a better solution than "profiling."
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Post a Comment