To Give or Not to Give

I was a regular blood donor until I became involved with a bisexual man in 1986. I stopped giving blood because I wasn’t sure about my potential for HIV infection. Then I educated myself about HIV transmission routes, tested negative for HIV, practiced safer sex only, and did not put myself at risk. Three years later I started giving blood again with a clear conscience. At a blood drive sponsored by my employer I was deferred indefinitely because I had been sexually involved with a bisexual man. Though I insisted that my sexual activity had not put me at risk, Red Cross personnel could not hear me past the point of my being sexually involved with a bisexual man. They handed me a pre-signed deferment letter and told me to leave. I fought my deferment by sending the Red Cross the following letter, which I offer as an example of bisexual AIDS activism.

The letter was also printed in Gay Community News.

July 5, 1991

Robert Hoff, MD

Assistant Medical Director

American Red Cross Regional Headquarters

180 Rusteraft Road

Dedham, MA 02026

Dear Dr. Hoff,

According to your letter which I received on June 28, 1991, my name, social security number and other identifying information have been placed in your register of deferred donors. The federal guidelines concerning blood donation require that I be indefinitely disqualified from donating blood for transfusion because I answered “yes” to question 5.6 a) Have you had sex with a man who has had sex with another man since 1977?

I understand that the new federal guidelines have been instituted in an effort to stop the spread of HIV, the virus which is believed to cause AIDS. However, by disqualifying me as a donor based solely on my answer to this question the Red Cross is conceding to the irrational fears of the uneducated general public and thus doing a grave disservice to the people of the United States.

The American Red Cross has the unique opportunity to educate millions of people from all sectors of the population about how to protect themselves from HIV infection. Instead it is scapegoating those of us who have taken the time to educate ourselves regarding HIV transmission and who are taking the necessary precautions to prevent infection.

A heterosexual woman who has unprotected intercourse with a man whose sexual history she does not know could easily have exposed herself to HIV and answered “no” to the above question. If she has not yet seroconverted to HIV positive, then her blood would pass the ELISA test and be transfused, thus potentially infecting someone. I, on the other hand, know my partner’s sexual history, have been HTV tested, have not exchanged bodily fluids other than saliva with him, and do not engage in activities that might put me at risk including heterosexual intercourse with or without a condom. Maybe you don’t want my blood anyway, but by not asking more specific questions you’re not effectively screening the blood supply or making donors more aware of how to protect themselves from HIV infection. At the same time the general public is allowed to maintain a false sense of security believing that “As long as I don’t associate with the wrong people I don’t have to worry.” This ignorance is highly insulting and will not help end the AIDS crisis.

I suggest that if the Red Cross really wants to do something to stop the spread of AIDS it should concentrate on education and start with its employees. Gay and bisexual men are not the problem. Attitudes like the ones perpetuated by the American Red Cross are.

With the utmost concern, Sharon M. Gonsalves