FDA Panel Continues to Be Bigoted Assholes

Mark Joseph Stern, writing for Slate on “FDA Panel Endorses Lifetime Ban on Gay Blood Donation, Suggests Gay Men Are Diseased Liars

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration’s Blood Products Advisory Panel met to discuss lifting the government’s 31-year-old ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men. Currently, any man who has had sexual contact with another man since 1977—even once, even using condoms—is barred for life from donating blood. The ban was instituted in 1983 in the early days of the AIDS crisis, when HIV testing was still rudimentary. It hasn’t been altered since.

This crazed, bigoted ban even prevents male rape survivors from donating blood – for life – if their perp was male.

15 comments

  1. So what? U can’t give blood either. No I’m not gay. No I was not raped. I had cancer of the blood. Should I be all pissed off about it? Or do I move on with my life? I choose to live my life. Yes I gave over 3gallons before I got sick. And my life was possibly saved from a transfusion. Get the hell over yourselves. They chose that life now live with the repercussions.

    Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 4:50 am

    1. I don’t need to get over myself – this is a baseless policy rooted in mythology, not facts.. Don’t direct your anger at me over your illness and don’t promote homophobia on my page. Baseless discrimination is not a repercussion for how someone is wired at birth. That’s ignorance and bigotry.

      Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 5:07 am

      1. I’m not angry about my illness nor am I a homaphobe. But sometimes life deals you a raw deal. You can either deal with it or move on with your life. I don’t care what you or someone do in your bedroom. Just leave me out of it. I can understand why you are upset about this! I hate the fact that I can’t give blood anymore but it is a fact of life. Sometime life sucks deal with it

        Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 5:15 am

        1. Sometimes the way people “deal with it” is to create awareness and then change things. For some people, their path is to accept it begrudgingly and move on – others change things for the better. Neither response is incorrect as a person has to do what feels right for themselves at the end of the day. You’ve chosen to move on. That sounds like the move you needed.

          Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 5:38 am

        1. Or even better drop down menu select “I don’t want to see this post.” The belief that people choose this lifestyle is what needs to be dealt with. Ignorance!

          Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 10:40 am

  2. There are two separate issues here: the decision, and the decion-makers and their authority. Change those parameters: you are the director of a single hospital and must decide if your hospital will accept blood from group X, which has a correlation C with disease Y, for which screening tests exist that have a certain cost and rate of false negatives. What would you do? What will your patients do? What will insurance companies want? What will your lawyers advise?

    I’m assuming you really want to work this out. If you want to just rage about something, yeah, combine the FDA, rape, and gay rights in one issue, and maybe add abortion for good measure.

    Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 12:41 pm

    1. It’s arbitrary Stephen, given that HIV is not solely attributable to one gender or one sexual orientation. If anyone can get it (obviously) and the concern truly is medical, than no one should be donating since anyone can get it. This old prohibition is based on “morals” not medical science. Speaking out about it, isn’t about a desire to “rage about.” The facts don’t support the arbitrary prohibition. Are you serious or just social conservative concern-trolling about concepts that you are willfully confusing?

      Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 1:47 pm

        1. I find it funny when people using talking points that say exactly nothing relevant or fail at logic. What they really mean was, “how come my intolerance is being called out with words.” They celebrate blatant discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and then complain that people take exceptions with that position. What they really mean is, “I want to say whatever I want and no one can say anything back and if they do then I’m gonna cry that I’m being suppressed, ‘cuz Limbaugh or Smurfs or George Lucas or whatever excuse fits this week…” That is a call for special snowflake protections from criticism of their own words, not intolerance. The difference is staggering and quite obvious.

          Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 1:55 pm

  3. Why don’t they stop taking blood from everyone who has been raped, not just men. And what about the partners of anyone who has been raped …..

    Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 12:45 pm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.