FDA wants sperm banks to bar donors who've had gay sex

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
link

NEW YORK (AP) -- To the dismay of gay-rights activists, the Food and Drug Administration 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 FDA 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.

(more)
i'd love to know who's behind this move. is it wrong of me to suspect christian conservatives? and if i'm right, would this mean there's some belief there that sexuality could be nature over nuture?

i wonder if that's really the driving force here.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,528
OBJECTIVE reality
wrc fan said:
Um... how exactly can they tell?
Tomorrow's news headline: "Homeland Security looking to hire 1000s of new surveillance agents. New Homeland Office of Man-on-man Observation (HOMO) division to be based out of San Francisco."

Seriously, you have to suspect the religious right had more to do with this than any desire for protecting the public from HIV, as zimv says.
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
You can't donate blood if you've had sex with another man, either.

I'm sure all of you would be more than forgiving if your sister decided to use a sperm donor and ended up getting HIV because the test missed it.
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
katchow said:
and if african americans are at a higher risk of being HIV infected? I guess that's the next logical step isn't it?
Being African American is a genetic and cultural trait.

Having sex with another man is an actual action.
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
Getting/having HIV through semen transmission while engaging in sex with another man is far more likely than just being black.

I don't necessarily like it. I tried to donate blood once and had to leave the bloodmobile, but even with testing there is no 100% guarantee that I or my partner don't have HIV (and we've both tested negative for five straight years).

That said, there is no 100% gaurantee that a straight man, gay woman, whoever doesn't have it either....but two men exchanging semen in whatever way is probably the easiest way to get the disease.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
iGary said:
I'm sure all of you would be more than forgiving if your sister decided to use a sperm donor and ended up getting HIV because the test missed it.
And I'm sure we'd feel much better if we knew that sperm came from a straight donor with HIV.

What about egg donors? Do they draw the line at lesbians? What about staight women who've had sex with gay men?
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
pseudobrit said:
And I'm sure we'd feel much better if we knew that sperm came from a straight donor with HIV.

What about egg donors? Do they draw the line at lesbians? What about staight women who've had sex with gay men?
So what is your solution, try and eliminate the riskiest behavior or be PC about things and put people at risk?

Let's allow anyone to donate sperm, blood, platelets, organs...

Christ.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
iGary said:
So what is your solution, try and eliminate the riskiest behavior or be PC about things and put people at risk?

Let's allow anyone to donate sperm, blood, platelets, organs...

Christ.
We're not talking about blood, platelets and organs; we're talking about sperm, which already has a reliable testing procedure to eliminate risky donors, straight or gay.
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
pseudobrit said:
We're not talking about blood, platelets and organs; we're talking about sperm, which already has a reliable testing procedure to eliminate risky donors, straight or gay.
100% accurate, right?
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Damn conservatives. I guess they think the gayness will be transferred to the child and the entire nation will eventually be gay. Maybe they should try reading a middle school level biology book :rolleyes:
 

jsw

Moderator emeritus
Mar 16, 2004
22,819
41
Andover, MA
iGary said:
100% accurate, right?
Nothing 100% accurate. Aside from sex between virgins - monitored since birth to ensure no activity of any possible disease-transferring kind has occurred - which is 100% safe.

No, wait, guess not. Disease could come from the mother during pregnancy or child birth.

So I guess now we're limited to sex between two heterosexuals who descend from an unbroken chain of monogamous couples who have never been exposed to other diseases.

I think the point here is that we should develop the best screening test possible and warn those who use the services of the possible risks. I simply fear we - meaning the religious far right, not actually most of us - would rather target gays than develop better tests.
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
yg17 said:
Damn conservatives. I guess they think the gayness will be transferred to the child and the entire nation will eventually be gay. Maybe they should try reading a middle school level biology book :rolleyes:
I didn't see anything about conservatives in the article. Talk about generalizing and stereotyping.
 

jsw

Moderator emeritus
Mar 16, 2004
22,819
41
Andover, MA
iGary said:
I didn't see anything about conservatives in the article. Talk about generalizing and stereotyping.
I don't see liberals as being behind this. It's essentially a ban on allowing gay men to donate sperm, as it's unlikely that men who have been celibate for five years are likely to be sperm donors.

I would be amazed if the chances of actually becoming infected with HIV due to receiving donated sperm - from anyone whose sperm has passed the current tests - are in any way higher than those of catching it during heterosexual encounters with anyone other than a committed partner of the woman accepting the donation - which doesn't apply, because such women wouldn't be accepting sperm donations from strangers (meaning that, if the partner's sperm worked, they wouldn't be looking elsewhere).

This is simply going to encourage donors to lie. Period. Whereas efforts to develop better tests would help everyone.
 

makisushi

macrumors 6502
Jul 15, 2004
301
0
Northern VA
yg17 said:
Damn conservatives.
come on now...Is this comment really necessary?
Let's try to stay constructive here.
yg17 said:
I guess they think the gayness will be transferred to the child and the entire nation will eventually be gay. Maybe they should try reading a middle school level biology book
Whoever is pushing this ban is probably not looking at the issue from a medical standpoint, but more of an emotional side.
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
jsw said:
I don't see liberals as being behind this. It's essentially a ban on allowing gay men to donate sperm, as it's unlikely that men who have been celibate for five years are likely to be sperm donors.

I would be amazed if the chances of actually becoming infected with HIV due to receiving donated sperm - from anyone whose sperm has passed the current tests - are in any way higher than those of catching it during heterosexual encounters with anyone other than a committed partner of the woman accepting the donation - which doesn't apply, because such women wouldn't be accepting sperm donations from strangers (meaning that, if the partner's sperm worked, they wouldn't be looking elsewhere).

This is simply going to encourage donors to lie. Period. Whereas efforts to develop better tests would help everyone.
I don't see liberals being behind this either, but it's no better to say "Damn Conservatives" than to say "Damn gays."

Both comments are stereotyping.

At the end of the day, if anyone of us was a woman, would you rather have a seminal implant from a seuxally active gay man that has been tested negative, had his sperm "washed," or a sexually active straight man who has only had sex with women?

I know which one I'd rather have, no matter how "un-PC" the decision is.

I agree, though, better testing is needed.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
iGary said:
I agree, though, better testing is needed.
assuming p'brits figures are correct, and that since testing began there have been exactly zero incidents of HIV transmission to the receiver, do you still assert better testing is needed?