The US government said it would ban homosexuals from making anonymous donations to sperm banks, in the name of preventing transmittable diseases, in a move swiftly condemned by gay rights groups.
New Food and Drug Administration rules that take effect May 25 require agencies that collect tissues or cells including sperm to ask the donor if he has had sex with men or used injectable drugs in the past five years. If the answer is affirmative in either case no donation is allowed.
This is total bullshit. It sounds like a bunch of homophobia to me. Heck it might even be eugenics if we all didn’t know that homosexuality was obviously a choice. ‘Cause I know I remember making a choice between innies and outies.
I went to the FDA website and found their guidelines for tissue donation. You can look at it to see what the requirements are; they begin on page 16. The top one on the list is not having hot gay sex in the last five years. (I’m gonna get a Google hit from that one.)
I also found a transcript from an FDA conference where the issue was discussed.
The following was very enlightening. It begins on page 160.
[MR. TREEIMAN:] Now, in 1981, 20 years ago, I started a group for lesbians and gay men to have children together, and in 1982, I was one of the foremost loud mouths in my community to stop lesbians and gay men having children together because of the dangers of HIV. I was doing the FDA’s job 20 years ago.
If the FDA had come up with this proposal in 1985, I would be supporting it. I would have supported it back then. But with what we know now about the window period and HIV testing and its efficacy and the quarantine period, these are not appropriate for the year 2002….
Now, some in the FDA has taken the Young Gay Men Health Study and extrapolated that inappropriately to all gay men. And I fail to see how the sexual habits and the HIV prevalence rate of men in their early 20s who are, for the most part, recruited from sexual venues relates to men in their 30s and 40s who are in long term mutually monogamous relationships. In fact, to take that number defies any sort of scientific mind set or dignity. One has to suspect that in order to snatch at that number, there are other reasons for it.
The first time I heard of that was at the CDC conference last year, and someone from the FDA did appropriately expropriate the Young Gay Men’s Health Study number to all gay men in general, and I said that’s an inappropriate thing to do. And he said to me, “Do you have a better number I can use?” His unscientific method seizing upon this number, regardless of how inappropriately, left me in stunned silence. But, sir, I say to you today I do have a better number, and it matches Dr. Dayton’s number of zero. I simply studied the men who presented at my sperm bank. If we’re going to talk about men, gay men, MSMs who might potentially be donors, let’s look at them at the only sperm bank. And you have in your possession my study, 72 men screened as I have said, but in addition to that in addition to that, we asked them very detailed questions about their sexual behaviors. And we came up with criteria that identity release donors because I only work with identity release donors, which are the same, once again, in terms of safety as anonymous donors, is that they had a previous negative HIV test and had not had a sexually transmitted disease during the last five years and had never had syphilis or were celibate or in a long term mutually monogamous relationship with a cohabitating HIV negative partner or were single and did not engage in rectal sex or engaged in rectal sex but only used condoms without breakage you have to ask very specific questions and did not engage in oral sex or engaged in oral sex without ejaculation in the mouth.
Now, oral sex is a big bugaboo. A lot of people say that it’s a safe practice. It is not a safe practice. It is a very low risk practice, but it is not a safe practice, and it is around the issue of oral sex and I’m really amazed that we haven’t been talking about more about oral sex and directed donors here this morning. It is around the issue of oral sex that we need to ask people, Are you engaging in unprotected oral sex with partners you don’t know their sero status or partners who you know to be positive?
The result of my study is that all 72 men came up negative….
I bet if I did a study on heterosexual men who participated in risky sex and extrapolated it to all heterosexuals, I could eliminate even more potential sperm donors.