What Does the Red Cross Have against Gays?
By Andy Heath
A few years ago I took it upon myself to write the American Red Cross a letter chastising them for their decision to deny gay men the right to donate blood to their cause. I found it ironic that the Red Cross would deny our blood when by their own admission they can always use more. In the letter, I told them that I was a gay man that practiced safe sex and that there were many of us gays around the country that would be more than willing to give our blood to their cause if they would only accept it.
I have to admit I was surprised to receive a response, which I have to credit them for being so kind. I have found that some organizations do not respond to criticism. Regardless, when the gentleman wrote me back, he explained that gay men have a higher prevalence of HIV, and because of the six month window between the body's contraction of the virus and the ability to detect the virus in the blood that the Red Cross could not accept our blood. The gentleman went on to tell me that the Red Cross's decision to deny gays' the right to give blood was not a social issue but a practical one that prevented people from contracting HIV.
While I was happy that the Red Cross was kind enough to respond to my inquiry, I have to admit that its response disappointed me mainly because the issues the gentleman raised with accepting our blood could be easily worked around. I won't address the representative's arguments that gay men are more likely to have HIV, as I am not qualified to make the determination, and I have seen conflicting data on the issue over the years.
I will, however, say that there are some practical ways to accept gays' blood while at the same time promoting the cause of the Red Cross and working around the issues that the representative raised. For example, the Red Cross could continue to ask men if they have ever had sex with another man, and then simply hold those gay men's blood for the six month period, test that blood, and then use it if it is clean.
I suppose my other issue with discriminating against men that have had sex with men or against women that have had sex with men that have had sex with men is that it is essentially arbitrary discrimination. When addressing the issue of HIV, it does not matter if you are a man that has had sex with a man or if you are a man that has had sex with a woman that has had sex with a man that has had sex with a woman that has had sex with a man that has had sex with a man. To be honest, since we are all such sexual creatures, unless both partners are in a monogamous relationship with each other from the beginning of their sexual lives to the very end, it is highly unlikely that anyone is completely unconnected to any man that has had homosexual sex at some point in his life.
For these reasons, I do not believe the Red Cross has any good explanation for denying us the right to give blood. I gave blood to the Red Cross until I lost my virginity (I know, I was a late bloomer at the age of 22) and stopped afterward because I respect the right of the Red Cross to deny any donors it sees fit for any reason, as it is a private organization. Still, if its representatives truly want to do the best they can for a global community in need of blood amidst all the wars and crises it has to deal with, I would recommend it stop denying blood from qualified donors such as gays and start allowing us to give blood.
