"I was again painfully reminded that society still thinks of me as something less than good"

by: Adam Bink

Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 09:45

This morning, I wanted to share with you two things: one is the live streaming video of the committee hearing. Lori Knowles from the University of Alberta is currently giving an amazing presentation on how the policy stigmatizes all gay men as diseased and a threat to society, that AIDS is a gay male disease, and that the AIDS test is unreliable.

Next up at approximately 10:00 AM, Gay Men's Health Crisis, an organization with which I've been working on this issue and a group that eventually became the first major organization to help those living with HIV/AIDS back in the early 1980s, will be presenting a case for revising the ban for about half an hour or so. If you'd like to see experts make a case on why the ban should be revised, I urge you to watch. It really is a fascinating discussion. Later this morning at 11:05 AM EST, there will be an open public comment period. You can view the live streaming video and the agenda for the rest of the day here.

Second, I want to share something with you. A number of people felt inspired by the call to action yesterday and forwarded me the letters they submitted to Dr. Jerry Holmberg, the Executive Secretary of the Committee tasked with accepting public comments. With his permission, I've republished a letter in the extended entry from Tim Kerr below (which is where the title of this post comes from), who read about our blogswarm on Pam's House Blend and Joe.My.God and took action. I'll be sharing a few more throughout the day.

Please read Tim's letter and if you have not already done so, please submit a public comment to [email protected], and urge that the ban be revised to improve the nation's health, meet sound scientific practices, and eliminate discrimination. You can view talking points and a form letter for your convenience in my post here.

Thanks for taking action.

Dr. Holmberg:

Thankfully I haven't yet needed a blood transfusion (knock on wood), but I have been personally affected by the ban on blood donation by gay men and I'd like to share with you how.

I've always been active in my community and worked hard to try to improve the world around me in ways both large and small, for example by representing indigent clients in the courtroom and administrative hearings, volunteering at a homeless shelter, or just helping someone with a baby carriage down the steps of the subway or through a door.  In high school and college, once I was old enough, I gave blood during every blood drive, wore my stickers proudly, and guilted those around me into doing the same.  I gave blood even when there was no blood drive going at school.  This was the natural thing for me to do.  It's how I try to live my life.  But I haven't been allowed to give blood for over a decade now, and I've never truly understood why.

I'm not a scientist, and as a lawyer I don't feel comfortable quoting studies to you that I haven't reviewed or don't fully comprehend regarding HIV rates in various populations or the accuracy of testing methods, and of course the most important consideration must be what's best for blood recipients.  But I will tell you what the ban has meant for me, because I think it's important for you to consider all sides of the issue.  I will tell you that it was quite painful for me to walk into the university blood drive facility one day and sit down with the checklist of prerequisites and come to the realization that I wasn't even sure if I was eligible to give blood anymore.  I don't know what the papers handed out now say, but at the time the question was just something along the lines of, "Are you a man who has had sex with another man at any time since 1977."  I knew I would be getting the question, of course, but I was surprised nonetheless, I guess because I'd never had to think twice about anything on the checklist before.  I'm a fairly intelligent person (or so I like to think) and I honestly didn't even know how to answer that question.  I was also, understandably, too embarrassed to ask a phlebotomist.  Most importantly, though, I felt a profound sense of shame, like I'd done something wrong, or worse was something wrong.  As much as I struggled with the realization I was gay in my early teens and with coming out to my family and publicly when I started college, none of it was as painful to me as the day the Red Cross told me it no longer wanted my blood.  As relatively well adjusted as I was, it still hurt terribly to be told I was no longer "pure" enough to do that small act of kindness.

Over the years I must have learned to take it for granted that there were some services to the community that the community simply didn't want from me, or maybe I forced the blood ban issue into the back corner of my mind where I hide all the slurs and bullyings of the past.  That changed again last year, when I began working in a new office with a Red Cross blood drive in the building once a week.  One of my colleagues was the kind of person I'd always aspired to be, though he succeeded in more ways than I or most people ever could.  He was (and is) a truly good person of the variety one meets only a couple of times in a lifetime.  One of his regular activities was to give blood every time he was able.  (He had a terrible memory, so he would end up asking them just about every week whether enough time had passed.)  This colleague reminded me of quite a few things I had forgotten about myself, but what sticks out most in my is the time when he asked me if I wanted to go with him to give blood and I had to tell him that I couldn't.  He was shocked, not because I'm gay, which he knew and couldn't care less about, but because, like me a decade earlier, he hadn't had to think about the meaning of the items on the blood donor checklist.  Although I was gratified that he was appropriately outraged at my inability to give blood with him, I have to admit that I was also a bit miffed that someone so conscientious apparently hadn't given a second thought to the meaning of the blood ban.  And although societal approval doesn't generally factor too highly among the reasons I try to be a good person, I was again painfully reminded that society still thinks of me as something less than good, or less than worthy to do even this one simple thing to help out someone in need.

I'm very aware that the needs of blood recipients is the most important thing for you to consider when developing or changing this or any other regulation regarding blood donation.  That's the way it should be.  However, I also think it's imperative that you and the Committee be aware of the very real life consequences the blood ban has on gay men.  Luckily I was raised in a loving and nurturing environment by a family (including an Episcopal priest father who is the person I respect most in the world) and with friends who have always loved and accepted me as I am, so I'm comfortable with the fact that I'm gay.  I'm also as comfortable as one could ever be with the knowledge that I will never fully be accepted as an equal member of society.  Yet I will always remember the gut-wrenching feeling that struck me when I realized I could no longer give blood.  And again when I had to say so out loud to my colleague and friend.  I can only imagine the devastating effect it could have on someone less comfortable with himself, especially if it were to happen at a time when a young gay man is particularly vulnerable to such societal signals, or to someone from a particularly vulnerable background.  It is, quite literally, dehumanizing.    

Finally, I'd like you to know that should you lift the ban, in me you'd have at least one more donor who would be in line to give blood on a regular basis.  I would love that.

Thank you for your time and attention.  And although reconsideration of the blood ban is long overdue, it means a great deal that you and the Committee are even having the conversation.

Sincerely,
Timothy Kerr

Please take a minute to e-mail Dr. Holmberg via [email protected]  and urge him and the committee to revise the ban on blood donations from MSM.