News & Politics - FDA wants sperm banks to bar donors who've had gay sex

Temptress · 05-05-2005, 09:54 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

Behavior vs orientation

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."

'Directed' donors

However, some sperm banks, notably in California, have welcomed gay donors. The director of one of them, Alice Ruby of the Oakland-based Sperm Bank of California, said her staff had developed procedures for identifying gay men with an acceptably low risk of HIV.

Gay men are a major donor source at Traiman's Rainbow Flag sperm bank, and he said that practice would continue despite the new rules.

"We're going to continue to follow judicious, careful testing procedures for our clients that even experts within the FDA say is safe," said Traiman, referring to the six-month quarantine.

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.

However, Traiman said some lesbian couples do not have a gay friend they know and trust well enough to be the biological father of their child, and would thus prefer an anonymous donor.

Dr. Deborah Cohan, an obstetrics and gynecology instructor at the University of California, San Francisco, said some lesbians prefer to receive sperm from a gay donor because they feel such a man would be more receptive to the concept of a family headed by a same-sex couple.

"This rule will make things legally more difficult for them," she said. "I can't think of a scientifically valid reason -- it has to be an issue of discrimination."

What's everyone's thoughts on this?

- Jen - · 05-06-2005, 02:10 AM

I'm a little perplexed by this, why single out homosexuals, straight men can contract diseases as well?

Shouldnt they just implement a strategy where all men are screened for diseases, whether they are straight/gay/bi/green/purple etc I would of thought they would do that already, but some of the wording in the article, makes it seem like they dont, or maybe i'm just reading it wrong..

sick little jag · 05-06-2005, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by - Jen -

I'm a little perplexed by this, why single out homosexuals, straight men can contract diseases as well?

Shouldnt they just implement a strategy where all men are screened for diseases, whether they are straight/gay/bi/green/purple etc I would of thought they would do that already, but some of the wording in the article, makes it seem like they dont, or maybe i'm just reading it wrong..

Agreed. It isn't at all like straight men aren't just as likely to have been exposed to AIDS or any other STDs. I'd also think that homosexuals are more likely to use protection because it's such a known danger to them...while your average dumbass straight man won't use a condom because they don't think they could ever be at risk.

It's just...something isn't right about this. I don't think that, in today's time, any one group is really more likely to be exposed than anyone else.

mh67511 · 05-06-2005, 08:40 AM

The problem with this is it's not like you can prove someone is gay. There's not some test you take so all you have to do is lie.

I don't really understand what these clinics are for...it seems kind of creepy just having some random sperm be injected into your body. What if you end up with some creeps DNA and your kid turns out to be a whackjob? I don't like the idea of not knowing the father. Can't you just have sex or go to a clinic where they artificially inseminate you?

**GrhmLz** · 05-06-2005, 08:56 AM

Honestly, due to my own religious/spiritual beliefs, I don't believe in the use of sperm banks.

However, I don't understand how they came to their conclusions that only homosexual donors have the higher risk of passing on HIV to a potential mother and child? Are they saying that they have factual statistics that show homosexual donors carry HIV at higher rates than heterosexuals? Or are they saying that they have studies that show mothers/children that have become infected with HIV from a homosexual donor more often than a heterosexual donor? Without this information, I'm confused. It would appear that without this valid research to constitute it that all donors could possibly pose a potential risk to a woman and child. Therefore, it should be mandated that they all be thoroughly looked into.

But like the previous poster stated, it is so easy to just lie. How can they ever really prove who claims to be homosexual and who doesn't unless the person volunteers that information?

Milt Palacio · 05-06-2005, 09:05 AM

Homosexuals DO have higher rates of HIV, but that doesn't make it OK to outright ban them from donating sperm.

IV drug users and people who have had a large number of sexual partners also have high risk of HIV and I don't see the FDA banning them from donating sperm. I'm afraid this is just another part of the "War on Gays" going on in this country right now.

I'm glad I wasn't born gay. Their lives are tough enough as it is and the culture in this country is trying to make their lives even harder.

Semmer · 05-08-2005, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milt Palacio

Homosexuals DO have higher rates of HIV, but that doesn't make it OK to outright ban them from donating sperm.

Agreed. Homosexuals seem more likely to get STD during sex because there is more blood exchanged, due to things like anal sex. But I don't understand how they can stop a homoesexual man from giving sperm. I mean, do they a radar that tells if a man is gay or not? I don't know, maybe they do a back round check.

Papri · 05-09-2005, 05:44 AM

I agree with what pretty much everyone has already said here; questions such as how they're even gonna enforce such a "rule" and how in this day and age almost every "group" of people are at the same risk to contracting STDs/HIV etc. But anyway, like GrhmLz and mh67511 said, I don't personally agree with the use of sperm banks. I know it's a slim chance, but what if a child conceived from a sperm donor ends up meeting and falling in love with their genetic half-sibling? To me there are just too many risks, both genetic and emotional. I mean, I wouldn't want a child sharing half of my genes and half of some random strangers. Having faced the issue myself of potentially not being able to conceive naturally, I'd much rather opt for adoption.

In Fair Verona · 05-09-2005, 01:40 PM

Well, good luck with that. I'd like to see them even try to enforce it. It's discrimatory but it doesn't seem like it will be that large of a problem unless you have the morality which prevents you from lying.

Why don't they just ban men with HIV/AIDs or other STDs instead of the vague and elusive grouping of 'gay men'?

JohannafromIHJ · 05-09-2005, 02:15 PM

This is the dumbest thing ever. As if it's not hard enough to get good spermdonors already.

But, you know, this should swing both ways. Why not make rules and laws about eggdonors as well? Lesbians is the group with the lowest HIV/AIDS rate of any group on this planet, so obviously the only esbians should be allowed to donate eggs. Preferably lesbians who have never even kissed a man.

Moonlight~Pixie · 05-09-2005, 05:14 PM

Quote:

The problem with this is it's not like you can prove someone is gay. There's not some test you take so all you have to do is lie.

That's completely true... unless it really shows.

Citizen Sarah · 05-10-2005, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semmer

Agreed. Homosexuals seem more likely to get STD during sex because there is more blood exchanged, due to things like anal sex.

From what I've read thats not actually true- according to an article about AIDs I read recently hetrosexuals are more likely to contract AIDs by having unprotected sex because there is more fluid exchange?

I hate how they've tried to mask their homophobia as being about the "safety" of mother and child- what BS. America seems to be a bit crazy right now!

*Natalie* · 05-11-2005, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonlight~Pixie

That's completely true... unless it really shows.

It may be difficult even then in many of cases, because looks can be deceiving, after all.

Milt Palacio · 05-11-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citizen Sarah

America seems to be a bit crazy right now!

Only a bit?

bexter · 05-11-2005, 05:25 PM

I debated about whether or not it was even worth posting about such a stupid proposal, but this just makes me angry. How the hell are they gonna know if someone has had gay sex? And if they had safe sex, no matter with what gender, then why should they be discriminated against?

America is really messed up and I live here


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > FDA wants sperm banks to bar donors who've had gay sex