TO THE EDITOR:
When I saw Wednesday’s headline about a state and nationwide blood shortage (“Facing low donation rates, Red Cross seeks more blood”), it reminded me how I was told as a first year that my sexual history was the sole factor preventing me from giving blood.
I’d donated blood in the past, when during the preliminary risk survey I had been able to truthfully answer that I hadn’t had sex with a man since 1977.
It took a great deal to overcome my paralyzing fear of needles, but it was something I was willing to do to help the community.
I’ve since been rejected from giving blood strictly on the basis of sexual activity defined as risky. But what does risky mean? I’ve been in a committed relationship for three years, I practice and preach safe sex and I don’t abuse my body. For an archaic measure instituted during times of less strict testing practices to continue to keep gay blood out of the donation pool is to cause harm to the gay community by defining us as second-class and to hurt the community at large in its time of need.
I’m not saying that a lift on the FDA’s ban on gay blood (recently upheld this past June) would solve the shortage entirely.
But when they’re willing to come into the 21st century, I have an arm full of warm, O blood I’m willing to stick out there to do my part.
Brett Kessler
Senior
English
Creative Writing
