Homosexual men should be allowed to donate blood

Introduction This is an incredibly touchy subject and I completely understand why my opponent would find himself frustrated with this policy. From the looks of it, the FDA is practicing explicit discrimination by barring 2% of the population from donating blood.[1] But let’s give the FDA and CDC the benefit of the doubt before we start calling them bigots operating at the height of some discriminatory fascism. Let’s remember that donated blood is for the explicit purpose of aiding in the health of other individuals. The primary concern then is not the feelings of those who can or cannot donate, but rather the health of the patient who may end up receiving donated blood. Thus, some nondiscretionary safety measures are rightfully in order. For instance, gay men are in no way singled out. People who travel to certain countries are barred from donating blood. People who have received animal tissue or organ transplants are restricted, and people who are intravenous drug users are restricted[2]. These restrictions are part of a multilayer safety procedure that seeks to reduce the risk of infected or unusable blood through preliminary screening questions. This way, if something DOES go awry during blood testing, say a botched test, the likelihood of that blood being infected is still low because of those preliminary screenings. With this in mind, I will present two arguments that when conjoined clearly show that the current ban on blood donations from MSM (men of have sex with men) is justified.1. HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B and other infections disproportionately affect MSM.2. Recent infections can yield negative test results HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B and other infections disproportionately affect MSM. Reports gathered by the FDA and CDC show that even though MSM make up approximately 2% of US population, they make up 61% of all new HIV infections. To ignore this glaring disproportional statistical reality would be irresponsible. Moreover, 77% of HIV infections have been attributed to MSM. With gay men bearing such a statistically significant share of HIV infections, it is professionally responsible to eliminate their donations in prescreening. Furthermore, gay men share a disproportionate share of viral Hepatitis. 10% of new cases of Hepatitis A and 20% of new cases of Hepatitis B are attributed to MSM. While it is true that donated blood is screened before use, even this is sometimes not enough. For instance, a patient in Colorado received a blood transfusion during a kidney transplant in 2008 and contracted HIV because the donor who donated lied on his prescreening about having anonymous sex with men.[3] This is an example where prescreening, if not fabricated, would have successfully prevented a recipient from contracting HIV where blood tests had afterwards failed. Thus, as evidenced by actual cases where blood tests fail to prevent infected blood entering the medical system, it is abundantly clear that a multilayer safety guard is necessary. Prescreening and barring individuals who have an inordinate statistical likelihood to carry noxious viral ailments transmitted through blood transfusion is professionally responsible and medically justified. Recent infections can yield negative test results The FDA as acknowledged that, though HIV tests are highly accurate, they still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time. They have also acknowledged that there exists a “window period” shortly after initial infection that causes HIV to go undetected by HIV testing methods. Basically, during the time after infection “a person is infected with HIV, but may not have enough virus or have developed sufficient antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of HIV infection.”[4] Conclusion Because tests cannot always detect HIV infections and multilayer safety measures are professionally responsible for any corporate entity dealing with the health of others, there exists a reasonable and measured justification for barring MSM from donating blood. To believe that MSM should be allowed to donate blood to avoid discrimination is to believe that the health of recipients of donated blood is trumped by the feelings of a small minority who shares a disproportionate share of one of the most deadly and pandemic viruses of all time.InquireTruth [1] http://www.cdc.gov... [2] http://www.fda.gov... [3] http://www.stltoday.com...[4] http://www.fda.gov...