We All Should Have The Right to Give Life
By Jeff Manassero

Printed in The Daily Californian on Tuesday, May 1, 2007. Reprinted with permission of the author.

Since 1983, sexually active gay men have been selectively prohibited from donating blood. The policy was enacted in reaction to the emergence of HIV/AIDS among the gay male population in the United States. In order to best protect the blood supply from the widely misunderstood virus, the Food & Drug Administration–the federal body charged with overseeing blood donations–implemented a lifetime ban for all men who had engaged in sexual intercourse with other men, since 1977.

Twenty-four years later, the policy is still in place despite technological and blood screening advancements, which includes a three-phase process to ensure all transferred blood is untainted.

The FDA defers donors temporarily based on many conditions, such as travel to foreign countries or recent exposure to needles, but provides no flexibility when considering the deferral of sexually active gay men. If a man engages in monogamous, protected sexual intercourse with only one man over a lifetime, this man is still considered at higher risk than the general sexually active population, and is therefore banned for life from donating blood.

When I arrived at my high school blood drive to donate blood for the third time, I was asked a series of deferral questions, this policy in particular, and answered in the affirmative. At the age of 18, I was denied the right to give life because of an outdated policy that dictated the level of risk associated with my sexual behavior. I was upset and left feeling isolated and rejected. It was the first time I had experienced the systematic and structural discrimination associated with being a gay man–and it was surely not the last.

The policy has gained national and global attention in the last decade, as the international community has begun to scale back such prohibitions against sexually active gay men. Both France and South Africa recently lifted their bans, and the American Red Cross has supported the repeal of the FDA policy. Although the FDA has yet to take action on the policy, many advocacy groups continue to support such a repeal–and colleges across the nation have held programs, events and demonstrations to express their shared sentiment.

Based on the UC non-discrimination policy, which prohibits discriminatory organizations from taking part in campus events, some campuses have held protests outside campus blood drives. The message is clear–change the policy–but the method is adversarial in nature, and therefore fails to gain empathy with a population that realizes the urgency for blood donations.
Every two seconds someone in American needs blood, resulting in the transfusion of 38,000 units of blood each and every day. To protest a blood drive, based on its discriminatory policy, is counteractive in its attempt to truly encourage progress and change within a system that primarily serves the interests of the public good. While these efforts are applauded, a new and innovative approach might better offer benefits for both a marginalized community seeking equality and an individual in desperate need of blood.

To balance these competing interests, UC Berkeley held its first ever „Sponsor Blood Drive‰ yesterday to great success. The blood drive coordinators invited deferred donor students and community members to seek sponsors to give blood in their name. The event raised awareness of the policy and provided an opportunity for all individuals to participate in the unique act of giving life. While some may resist the need to participate from the „outside,‰ it is at least another attempt to combat the outdated, harmful and discriminatory FDA policy.

In addition to the isolation felt by those rejected from donating blood, this policy encourages a climate of hostility for those gay men not yet „out‰ among their peers or co-workers. Blood drives are commonly held in workplaces or schools, and many sexually active gay men may be pressured into giving blood, thereby resisting and being forced to Œout‚ themselves as the reason for their deferral. The seemingly singular effect of the policy is in fact much larger–socially, politically and emotionally.

I encourage all those able individuals to give blood and save lives. Find your nearest blood service provider at www.RedCross.org or visit any one of the dozens of blood drive that take place on campus throughout the year. We should all have the right to give life–let us continue to strive for that aim and continue to save lives in the process.

Jeff Manassero is an ASUC senator.