US FDA Discriminates against gay men

New Rules to Ban Gay Men as Anonymous Sperm Donors
By DAVID CRARY, AP

NEW YORK (May 5) - To the dismay of gay-rights activists, the U.S. government is about to implement new rules recommending that any man who has engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor.

The Food and Drug Administration has rejected calls to scrap the provision, insisting that gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus. Critics accuse the FDA of stigmatizing all gay men rather than adopting a screening process that focuses on high-risk sexual behavior by any would-be donor, gay or straight.

"Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he's been celibate for five years," said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, California, that seeks gay sperm donors.

Traiman said adequate safety assurances can be provided by testing a sperm donor at the time of the initial donation, then freezing the sperm for a six-month quarantine and testing the donor again to be sure there is no new sign of HIV or other infectious diseases.

Although there is disagreement over whether the FDA guideline regarding gay men will have the force of law, most doctors and clinics are expected to observe it.

The practical effect of the provision - part of a broader set of cell and tissue donation regulations that take effect May 25 - is hard to gauge. It is likely to affect some lesbian couples who want a child and prefer to use a gay man's sperm for artificial insemination.

But it is the provision's symbolic aspect that particularly troubles gay-rights groups. Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, has called it "policy based on bigotry."

"The part I find most offensive - and a little frightening - is that it isn't based on good science," Cathcart said. "There's a steadily increasing trend of heterosexual transmission of HIV, and yet the FDA still has this notion that you protect people by putting gay men out of the pool."

In a letter to the FDA, Lambda Legal has suggested a screening procedure based on sexual behavior, not sexual orientation. Prospective donors - gay or straight - would be rejected if they had engaged in unprotected sex in the previous 12 months with an HIV-positive person, an illegal drug user, or "an individual of unknown HIV status outside of a monogamous relationship."

But an FDA spokeswoman cited FDA documents suggesting that officials felt the broader exclusion was prudent even if it affected gay men who practice safe sex.

"The FDA is very much aware that strict exclusion policies eliminate some safe donors," said one document.

Many doctors and fertility clinics already have been rejecting gay sperm donors, citing the pending FDA rules or existing regulations of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

"With an anonymous sperm donor, you can't be too careful," said a society spokeswoman, Eleanor Nicoll. "Our concern is for the health of the recipient, not to let more and more people be sperm donors."

The FDA rules do not prohibit gay men from serving as "directed" sperm donors. If a woman wishing to become pregnant knows a gay man and asks that he provide sperm for artificial insemination, a clinic could provide that service even if the man had engaged in sex with other men within five years.

On the Net:

FDA site: http://www.fda.gov

 

I can see the reasoning behind the rule, but it's because of prejudice and discrimination. First, blood donations aren't being accepted from homosexual men, now sperm donations... Before you know it, homosexual culture, as a whole, will be discriminated against; "Seperate but not equal." I see another social rights movement coming...

 

things are just getting more and more irrational.. maybe it's also to do with the belief in the concept of the 'gay gene' too? Just a thought..

 

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some of the far right whackos didn't just plain want us eliminated somehow. I remember in the 80's some idiot really suggested what woud have amounted to concentration camps. Fortunately Ronnie Ray-guns & his crew had the sense not to persue that concept.

 

The simple fact is that gay men are statistically at a much higher risk of contracting HIV than the general population. The only thing unreasonable about this rule is that it ignores the similarly high risk among promiscuous heterosexuals.

 

Recent Center for Disease Control & Prevention statistics show that of the new infections 70% were male 30% female overall. Broken down into risk factors. 25 % were Injection Drug Users, 33% Heterosexual & 42% Men who sleep with men. When you look at Women alone 75% were heterosexual & 25% IDU.

I couldn't find current numbers but there is a growing number of Children with HIV. It's well known that African Nations have the corner on the epidemic but there are numbers in all catagories growing here in the USA.

The total number of people who are newly infected is on the rise from where it was in the 90's The problem is that people aren't using safe practices as much as they were at that time.

I'm getting away from the subject a little but it all ties in. If you look at the fact that the numbers are rising in general along with the fact that there are so many who are heterosexual or haven't even grown to the age to be sexual it seems to me that it would make a lot more sense to test everything, use the freeze concept & be sure no matter who is donating it is HIV free.

 

the planet is overpopulated

sperm banks are ugh

 

Yah, that's pretty true anyhow... but it's still about the discrimination.

 

Yeah...although being discriminated from something that seems discutable isn't so bad in my books. But on principle I agree

 

I see something else -- much, much darker -- coming. As far as I'm concerned, this new rule is for gay men the new Kristallnacht, which if not challenged and stopped, will lead to greater and more severe anti-gay measures which, taken to their logical extreme, can result in a repeat of the Holocaust -- with gay men the primary victims this time.

Kristallnacht was the violent beginning of the Nazi persecution of the Jews shortly after Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933. Jewish homes, businesses and synagogues throughout Germany were vandalized and destroyed by maurauding mobs of Nazi stormtroopers. Shortly thereafter, the Nazis imposed one anti-Semitic law after another. The rest is one of the darkest chapters of world history.

I'm not Jewish, but I know when history is repeating itself. And that's exactly what's happening here with respect to GLBTs in general and gay men in particular. Apparently, too many Americans -- especially those in positions of power and authority -- have forgotten the lessons of history.

Make no mistake: The Religious Right hates gay people with the same passion that the Nazis hated the Jews. This mounting anti-gay discrimination must be fought against and stopped -- NOW. Or else, it will ultimately lead to another Holocaust.

 

You're reinforcing my point. Homosexuals and IDU together account for a clear majority of HIV infections. I suspect that most of the remaining 33% heterosexuals were promiscuous. All of these behaviors should be grounds for exclusion as donors.

Then again, I don't think that sperm donors should be allowed to be paid or remain anonymous, but that's another matter . . .

 

But YOU'RE missing the point that gay and bisexual men are the ONLY group to be banned totally from donating blood -- regardless of their HIV status. IV drug users are not likely to admit that they're using, out of fear of arrest and prosecution, since their activity is illegal.

In the absence of mandatory screening of all blood donations for HIV infection, everyone who wishes to donate blood should voluntarily take the HIV test before doing so -- and furnish documentation of a negative test result as proof that they're heathy when donating blood.

(As an FYI, I make the test part of my annual check-up; after 23 years, I've consistently tested HIV-negative.)

It is inexcusable that gay and bi men who are proven HIV-negative cannot donate blood, especially in times when there are critical shortages of blood, particularly Type O-negative.

And now, they're going to bar gay and bi men from donating their SPERM?? That's going WAY too far; that's a clear intrusion into personal affairs that violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

-- Skeeter