Anybody who wanted Gay sprem can forget it now.

[maximus]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/05/05/gay.donor.ap/index.html

FDA to ban sperm from men who had gay sex


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."

[Blackadar]

I don't know about this...I'd have to see the science behind it.

My "gut" is that this is wrong and based on poor science and prejudice. There are quite a few groups of potential donors who have a higher than average risk of AIDS and other diseases. For example (and it's just an example, I don't know this for sure) black men and women from Africa would probably have a higher-than-average risk of AIDS. Are they not permitted to give blood? I don't know if they are or not.

This seems to smack of the mid 80s AIDS scare more than 2005...

[John Galt]

I don't know about this...I'd have to see the science behind it.

My "gut" is that this is wrong and based on poor science and prejudice. There are quite a few groups of potential donors who have a higher than average risk of AIDS and other diseases. For example (and it's just an example, I don't know this for sure) black men and women from Africa would probably have a higher-than-average risk of AIDS. Are they not permitted to give blood? I don't know if they are or not.

This seems to smack of the mid 80s AIDS scare more than 2005...

If this part of the article is correct, I don't know how this can be read as anything but homophobia:

"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."

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I guess if you want to get gay sperm you'll have to go about it the old fashioned way...

[duckman]

Here is what I found about AIDS who were gay or bisexual:

In 1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that one million persons in the United States are HIV-positive, and 223,000 are living with AIDS. Of these patients, 44% are gay or bisexual men, 26% are heterosexual intravenous drug users, and 18% are women.

[sabotai]

Am I the only one who finds it strange that the Food and Drug Administration has anything to do with sperm at all?

[ice4277]

Am I the only one who finds it strange that the Food and Drug Administration has anything to do with sperm at all?
Uh, you ever eaten at Taco Bell?

[sabotai]

Uh, you ever eaten at Taco Bell?

No.

[ice4277]

No.
Oh.

[Joe]

Am I the only one who finds it strange that the Food and Drug Administration has anything to do with sperm at all?


it makes sense, I assume this would fall under biologics, which the FDA regulates.

[Blackadar]

Here is what I found about AIDS who were gay or bisexual:

In 1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that one million persons in the United States are HIV-positive, and 223,000 are living with AIDS. Of these patients, 44% are gay or bisexual men, 26% are heterosexual intravenous drug users, and 18% are women.

Those stats are changing.

Below is information I pulled from www.avert.org. In the period 1999-2003, the estimated number of females diagnosed with AIDS increased by 15%, while male diagnoses grew by just 1%.

At the end of 2003, the CDC estimates that 405,926 persons were living with AIDS in the USA.

Of these,

36% were white
42% were black
20% were Hispanic
2% were of other race/ethnicity.

Of the adults and adolescents1 with AIDS, 77% were men. Of these men,
58% were men who had sex with men (MSM)
22% were injection drug users (IDU)
11% were exposed through heterosexual contact
8% were both MSM and IDU.

Of the 88,815 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,
63% were exposed through heterosexual contact
35% were exposed through injection drug use.
An estimated 1,998 children were living with AIDS at the end of 2003.

I guess what's scary to me is if you look at the numbers, virtually the same argument could be made against blacks giving blood as gays. 42% of all AIDS patients are black. 44% are gay.

Now stats are cheap, so I'll break it down further...

That means 170,000 out of 37 million blacks have AIDS = .4%.

The 2000 census tells us that there are 105.5 million households in the USA.
5.5 million of these consist of unmarried partnerships, of these, 595,000 consist of same sex partners. That's no less than 1.2 million gays living as COUPLES. So we know the number is bigger than that. Using the common 3-5% that polls commonly show and the 209,000 adults over the age of 18 according to the last census, there are about 8 million gays today. Figure 50% are men (tho I suspect that number is probably higher). That's 4 million.

178,000 out of 4 million male gays have AIDS = 4.5% - 10 times the chance.

But my gut still says that this is bad policy.

[Crapshoot]

Here is what I found about AIDS who were gay or bisexual:

In 1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that one million persons in the United States are HIV-positive, and 223,000 are living with AIDS. Of these patients, 44% are gay or bisexual men, 26% are heterosexual intravenous drug users, and 18% are women.

In addition to what Blackadar said, isn't the idea of screening all people who fall into that category a better idea ? What this comes across as is nothing but homophobia - state sponsored homophobia at that.

[sterlingice]

Those stats are changing.

Below is information I pulled from www.avert.org (http://www.avert.org). In the period 1999-2003, the estimated number of females diagnosed with AIDS increased by 15%, while male diagnoses grew by just 1%.

At the end of 2003, the CDC estimates that 405,926 persons were living with AIDS in the USA.

Of these,

36% were white
42% were black
20% were Hispanic
2% were of other race/ethnicity.

Of the adults and adolescents1 with AIDS, 77% were men. Of these men,
58% were men who had sex with men (MSM)
22% were injection drug users (IDU)
11% were exposed through heterosexual contact
8% were both MSM and IDU.

Of the 88,815 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,
63% were exposed through heterosexual contact
35% were exposed through injection drug use.
An estimated 1,998 children were living with AIDS at the end of 2003.

I guess what's scary to me is if you look at the numbers, virtually the same argument could be made against blacks giving blood as gays. 42% of all AIDS patients are black. 44% are gay.
But to play devil's advocate, the number of gay men in this country is roughly 3% while the number of blacks in this country is 12% so the percentage of gay men with HIV is 4x as high as the percentage of black people (not men since that's what we're counting).

SI

[maximus]

I guess if you want to get gay sperm you'll have to go about it the old fashioned way...

eww...

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

In addition to what Blackadar said, isn't the idea of screening all people who fall into that category a better idea ? What this comes across as is nothing but homophobia - state sponsored homophobia at that.
I'm inclined to agree. Though I'm sure there would be some argument that screening only those that fall into that category is discriminatory as well. Why not mandate that all sperm should be screened?

[Blackadar]

But to play devil's advocate, the number of gay men in this country is roughly 3% while the number of blacks in this country is 12% so the percentage of gay men with HIV is 4x as high as the percentage of black people (not men since that's what we're counting).

SI

Good catch in pointing out the falicy of the logic. I was working on the revision of my post when you posted this - great minds think alike....



...then there's us. :)

[timmynausea]

You guys are some of the best gay sperm thinkers of our generation.

[Crapshoot]

I'm inclined to agree. Though I'm sure there would be some argument that screening only those that fall into that category is discriminatory as well. Why not mandate that all sperm should be screened?

I actually agree with this idea, but my guess is they will argue that its prohibitively expensive - thus the usage of general trends. That being said, statisical sampling techniques should let you get away with a reasonable sample size.

[sterlingice]

Good catch in pointing out the falicy of the logic. I was working on the revision of my post when you posted this - great minds think alike....



...then there's us. :)
Actually, that's one of my favorite phrases my fiance and I use when talking to each other and coming up with the same thing: "Great minds think alike... and then there's us"

SI

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

I actually agree with this idea, but my guess is they will argue that its prohibitively expensive - thus the usage of general trends. That being said, statisical sampling techniques should let you get away with a reasonable sample size.
I can see the cost argument.

Perhaps on top of testing using a statistical sampling method, sperm banks could offer additional screening to their patients for an additional cost. I have no idea if that's done already, but I know I'd pay for the extra assurance.

[Draft Dodger]

I guess if you want to get gay sperm you'll have to go about it the old fashioned way...

and again, no QOTM for greatness like this...

[Blackadar]

Let's pose the question a bit differently

What if only BLACK gay men were restricted? How would you feel then?

I have to make a few statistical assumptions (like the % of homosexuals is the same across races, etc.).

8 million homosexuals, 4 million men.

44% of AIDS cases are homoxexual men, 42% black = 18.48% of all AIDS cases are black homosexual men. That means about 75,000 cases.

44% of AIDS cases are homosexual men, 36% are whilte = 15.84% of all AIDS cases are white homosexual men. That means about 64,000 cases.

Of the 4 million homosexual men, 13% should be black = 520,000 black homosexual men.

Of the 4 million homosexual men, about 60% should be white = 2,400,000 white homosexual men.

Therefore, the chances of a black homosexual male having AIDS is 75,000/520,000 = 14%.

Therefore, the chances of a white homosexual male having AIDS is 64,000/2,400,000 = 2.6%.

I posted above that 170,000 out of 37 million blacks have AIDS. This is correct, but we need to take into account minors. Roughly 4 million of that 37 million should be minors. That should mean that 130,900 (77%) of these AIDS cases were black males out of 16.5 million black men (33/2). That's a .8% chance.

Black men as a whole = .8% AIDS
Homosexual white men = 2.6% (about 3x greater than black men as a whole and only 1.8% greater chance)
Homosexual black men = 14% (over 5x greater than white homosexual men but a 11.4% greater chance)

This isn't meant to be a racial attack - just using math to prove a point. The statistical difference between a black man and a homosexual white man is rather insignificant compared to the difference between a homosexual black man a and a homosexual white man. So the point could easily be made that only black homosexual men should be banned. If that was the case, how would you feel?

I don't know what this proves, if anything. To me, the whole thing still smacks of institutional homophobia.

(EDIT: Adjusted math a bit)

[duckman]

In addition to what Blackadar said, isn't the idea of screening all people who fall into that category a better idea ? What this comes across as is nothing but homophobia - state sponsored homophobia at that.
I agree with you that they should screen all people and not allow those who partake in risky behavior. I don't agree with the FDA's stance that they should exclude all gay men from donating sperm. I was just trying to find their reasoning behind such a decision.

I wouldn't call it homophobia (an unwarranted fear of homosexuals), but I would call it taking the data they have and just simply eliminating an entire group of people (blantant discrimination). Whether it is legal discrimination will have to be determine by the more legal minded people.

[DanGarion]

I guess if you want to get gay sperm you'll have to go about it the old fashioned way...

Where is the Ladies Man when you need him...?

[SackAttack]

The first thought that springs to mind for me is...

How are they going to enforce this? Show the prospective donors nude pictures of attractive men and women and see which they respond to before handing over the little cup?

[EagleFan]

Hell, I think they should not be allowed to donate sprem. The contract clearly calls for sperm so I see no reason to accept anything less.

[Subby]

When you donate blood you are asked a number of questions, including some about intraveneous drug use, gay sex, and prison. You are deferred indefinitely if you answer yes to any of those questions, even if it was just once.

[SackAttack]

When you donate blood you are asked a number of questions, including some about intraveneous drug use, gay sex, and prison. You are deferred indefinitely if you answer yes to any of those questions, even if it was just once.

Sure, but the point stands: if you don't tell them you've had gay sex, how are they ever going to be able to prove otherwise? It seems to me if a gay man really wants to donate sperm, there's a big gaping hole for him to drive the truck through.

[finkenst]

When you donate blood you are asked a number of questions, including some about intraveneous drug use, gay sex, and prison. You are deferred indefinitely if you answer yes to any of those questions, even if it was just once.
or if you've paid for sex with money or drugs... about your previous travel, where you were born, etc...

[ISiddiqui]

I just don't understand how the FDA could even begin to think about this restriction. Isn't it totally obvious to just ban those who are promiscuous and don't engage in safe sex? Like others have said, just looks like blatant homophobia.

[KevinNU7]

Wouldn't make more sense to demand that each semen sample also come with a blood sample that can be checked for various virus. Kind of the smae way that if you donate platalettes they take a small sample in a seperate bag for testing.