Sources cited on final page- special thanks to Karl of Helpful Guys

1. BLOOD DONATIONS in the US
A look at a controversial
history

2. BLOOD DONATIONS
 A history of discrimination

3. World War II 1940 USA
 Dr. Charles Drew was the first black person in the
U.S. to receive a Doctor of Science in Medicine
degree from Columbia University
 He researched techniques in blood and plasma
donation and was named Director of the
American Red Cross Blood Bank in New York
City
 At this time, the need for blood was great due to
the soldiers fighting in WWII.

4. American Red Cross WWII Flyer

5. Red Cross Flyer from WWII

6. However, in 1941,Dr.
Charles Drew resigned
from his position as
Director of the American
Red Cross Blood Bank
… WHY???
???????
???????
???????
?

7. Because , in 1941, the War
Department issued a directive
stating that blood taken from
white donors should not be
mixed with that taken from
African American donors.
"It is not advisable to
indiscriminately mix Caucasian
and Negro blood for use in
blood transfusions for the U.S.
Military".

8. Do you think this was a
decision based on
scientific research
or
discrimination ?

9. Dr. Drew called this unscientific and said "the blood of
individual human beings may differ by blood
groupings, but there is absolutely no scientific basis
to indicate any difference in human blood from race to
race.“
The US Military still continued to implement this
policy, even during the crisis of need for blood to
send to the American troops, until 1949. After
that, transfusions were allowed, but Black and
White blood was still stored separately!
So, for nearly a decade (1941-1949), U.S.
soldiers were denied blood that might have
saved their lives because of a fear-
based, discriminatory policy.

10. • Fast forward : By September
1982, the CDC began
calling a new, deadly
disease AIDS (acquired
1982 immune deficiency
syndrome
• Many were dying but no one
knew why.
• Some doctors were reluctant
WHY? to investigate the causes of
AIDS at all.

11. Dr Joel Weisman summed up the general
attitude by describing a conversation:
"I remember calling a person [in
infectious diseases] to describe what
was occurring. He said - and this was a
theme very early on –
'I don't know what you're making such a
big deal of it for. If it kills a few of them
off, it will make society a better place‟.”
(Black , 1986).

12. Do you think this was a decision
based on scientific research
or
discrimination ?

13. "An entire political movement grew up
around the silence of the Reagan
administration. The AIDS activist movement
took as its call to action 'silence equals
death' because literally the silence of the
Reagan administration was resulting in the
deaths of thousands and thousands of gay
men in our communities across the
country."Sue Hyde, National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force (Jacobs, 2004).

14. The silence of the US government on the topic of AIDS essentially
endorsed the deaths of gay and bisexual men

15. Keith Haring graphic art

16. Atmosphere of fear and panic
 It was in 1983, during this time of rampant
homophobia and panic when the FDA chose to
decree its lifetime ban policy on donations from
gay/bi men. Billboards and bumperstickers
stated things like “Thank GOD for AIDS”
 This was a climate of fear and uncertainty
 Blood testing was not yet very sophisticated
 There was a huge stigma placed upon anyone
with AIDS
 As if an HIV + person was a leper :filthy and
unclean
 Sadly, many of these attitudes still persist today

17. No one seemed to care…
 Few seemed to care about these people who
were dying until it began to affect the straight
communities as well. People had no idea how it
was spread and rumors were flying. The first
national AIDS education campaign was not
launched until 1988.
 By then, nearly 83,000 cases of AIDS had been
identified in America, and
 Over 45,000 people had died.

18. 1983 FDA GAY BLOOD BAN
 FDA: Ban is necessary because : Men who have
sex with men are at an increased risk for HIV
and Hepatitis
 While it has been historically true that MSM
experience higher rates of HIV infection than
some other groups-classifying blood donors by
their level of risky sexual behavior is a less
discriminatory, safer way to screen donors.
Additionally, more people with safe blood would
be eligible to donate: helping reduce our recurring
national blood shortages.

19. Stop the discrimination
 Being a MSM does not make someone
particularly susceptible to HIV or hepatitis
infection. Due to economic and social
discrimination, MSM as a group experience
increased rates of drug use and unsafe sexual
practices, as do many other groups experiencing
discrimination.
 Adding further unnecessary discrimination
against MSM is not the answer to addressing the
HIV/AIDS crisis. Nor is it the safest way to screen
blood donors.

20. FDA says but other places do it
too
 FDA : Other countries also have
lifetime/restrictive bans on this group BUT
 The principal of “everyone else is doing it” does
not justify unethical behavior. Discrimination
against the (L)GBT community generally and
MSM specifically has hardly been unique to
America. The FDA‟s attempt to use more socially
progressive European countries for political cover
is also misguided. Many countries, including
European ones, have reformed or are reforming
their Gay Blood Bans as we speak. Here is a
partial list: Russia, Spain, Italy, the Thailand Red
Cross, Sweden, Brazil, Argentina, Japan,
Hungary, and New Zealand.

21. POLAND
 A very interesting point here is that the AIDS rate
in Poland is VERY low and primarily occurs from
IV drug use.
 Poland is a country that DOES NOT BAN anyone
from blood donations based solely upon sexual
orientation.

22. FDA
 FDA:The deferral for men who have had sex with men
is based on the following considerations regarding
risk of HIV: Men who have had sex with men since
1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of
cases of a disease that are present in a population at
a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the
general population, 800 times higher than first time
blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat
blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into
account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex
with men already know they are HIV positive and
would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence
in potential donors with history of male sex with males
is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and
2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.

23. Response to FDA claims
 Right off the bat, it‟s not fair or useful to compare gay men as
a group to repeat blood donors. Repeat blood donors have
actually had their blood tested for HIV – the FDA requires it!
That‟s a self-selecting HIV negative subset of the population.
 Adopted from: http://www.gayblooddonation.org/against.html.
If 75% of HIV+ MSM know they are infected, some portion of
that 25% who doesn‟t “know” their status likely have strong
inclinations about their risk of infection based on their past
sexual behavior. These MSM who don‟t “know” their HIV+
status in the sense that they haven‟t confirmed it through
medical testing are also less likely to donate blood. We
suspect that MSM who truly have no idea they are HIV+, who
also may have had limited sex education, would also be a
subset less likely to attempt to donate blood than MSM who do
already know their HIV status.
 The FDA could further discourage all individuals who practice
risky sexual behavior from donating with a questionnaire
based upon risky behavior rather than sexual orientation.

24. FDA is ignoring :
1) the number of gay men with HIV is only a miniscule
fraction of the overall number of gay men,
 2) the overwhelming majority of gay men have not and
will not acquire HIV because they do practice safe sex,
 3) the cause of HIV infection in almost all cases is
unsafe behavior - unsafe sex or use of dirty needles,
 4) while HIV may be slightly more prevalent amongst
gay men than in the general population it is also more
prevalent amongst other social groups which are not
barred, as groups, from blood donation,
 5) higher prevalence in any particular group, does not
mean that individuals within that group are at higher risk.
In short, it is wrong to conclude that all gay men are at
high risk from HIV infection simply because the majority
of HIV infections occur through male-to-male sex.

25. Possible blood shortages ignored
 It may be easy to lump all MSM together, but
administrative convenience is not an excuse for
discrimination. This risk analysis also fails to account
for the very real benefits of increasing the blood donor
pool. The U.S. has experienced repeated blood
shortages that are only projected to worsen as the
population ages. The FDA needs to consider the
benefits of an increased donor pool, especially in
mass-casualty scenarios, when conducting its cost-
benefit analysis.
 Furthermore, the FDA can meet its safety obligations
more effectively and efficiently by using behaviorally –
based intake questionnaires.

26. Ignorance is NOT bliss
 Men who have had sex with men account for the
largest single group of blood donors who are
found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
 True, but only because the FDA chooses to
categorize donors based on sexual orientation and
refuses to categorize donors by the risk level of
their sexual behavior.
 We suspect that a group of potential blood donors
who admits to practicing unsafe sex with multiple
partners would have a higher prevalence of HIV
infection than MSM.
 BE AWARE OF RISKS

27. About „window periods‟…..
There are many less discriminatory, more effective ways to reduce
unknowing “window period” donations. The FDA could (privately
and anonymously) ask all potential donors about their recent sexual
history and whether/when they have been tested for HIV. The FDA
could impose a short-term, rather than permanent, deferral on
sexually active MSM. The FDA could educate potential donors about
sexual safety, the risks and effects of HIV/AIDS, and the various
testing methods available.
The FDA‟s MSM policy is underinclusive in that it fails to account
for heterosexuals who unknowingly donate blood during the
“window period” of their infections.
It is also overinclusive because the rate of infection within the
MSM grouping varies drastically based on the risk level of their
sexual behaviors.

28. The stigma of AIDS remains and many still think of it as a
White, gay man‟s disease. However- this is no longer true:
as of 2008, cases of AIDS have dramatically risen in the
Black population.
Black women have 18-20 times the rate of HIV of white
women
Black men have over six times that of White men.
What does this mean ?
Do we revert back to the racist ideas of the past ?
NO!

29. • Choosing to use IV drugs
Risk
• Choosing to travel to
Risk certain countries
• Choosing to have unsafe
sex with multiple partners
Risk • THESE ARE ALL RISKY
BEHAVIORS!!!!!

30. A few words from Mr. Schaefer of the Gay Men‟s
Health Crisis in New York City:
“…A better policy could be like that of Spain or
Italy, in which ALL potential donors are asked
how many sex partners they have had in the
past six months. Anyone, gay or straight, who
says they have had only one partner, can
donate blood, while others are deferred for a
period of time. That would ensure that „high-
risk heterosexuals‟ are deferred too.”

31. Simply being a sexually active gay or
bisexual man, on its own, is NOT a
health risk. The idea that their blood
will automatically be HIV positive is a
sad relic from the 1980s epidemic-
when no one cared how many died.
Small minds tainted by
homophobia are the
biggest threat that gay
and bisexual men face
today.
End the ban.

32. REFERENCES
1.)Carlson, K. (2011, March 31). Saving lives with helpful guy:safely and
sensibly reforming the fda's gay blood bans. Retrieved from
http://www.savingliveswithhelpfulguys.com/
2.) Starr, D. (Writer), Segaller, S. (Director), Read, N. (Producer), & Del
Guercio, G. (Director) (2002). Blood and war [Television series episode]. In
Marengo, A. (Executive Producer), Red gold the epic story of blood:i. New York, NY:
Thirteen/WNET. Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/innovators/bio_drew.html
3.) Black , D. (1986). The plague years: A chronicle of aids, the epidemic of our
times. New York, NY: Picador, USA. Retrieved from http://www.avert.org/aids-
history-america.html
4.) Jacobs, E. (2004, June 18). Activists recall reagan's record on aids. Bay
Windows. Retrieved from http://www.baywindows.com/activists-recall-reagans-
record-on-aids-59558
5.) WHO, UN AIDS,UNICEF, WOrld Health Organization. (2008).
Epidemiological fact sheet on hivand aids:core data on epidemiology and response
poland. Retrieved from website:
http://apps.who.int/globalatlas/predefinedReports/EFS2008/full/EFS2008_PL.p
df
6.) CDC Centers for Disease Control, (2012). Expanded hiv testing and african
americans. Retrieved from website: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources
7.) Wetzstein, C. (2012, May 16). Study could end ban on gay men donating
blood would make a subset eligible. Washingtom times. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/16/study-could-end-ban-
on-gay-men-donating-blood/