Gay Men No Longer Allowed to Anonymously Sperm Donors

[CandaceM23]

http://www.nbc4.com/health/4458979/detail.html

NEW YORK -- 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, Calif., 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.

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.

"The part I find most offensive -- and a little frightening -- is that it isn't based on good science."

- Kevin Cathcart,

Lambda Legal executive director

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."

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."

[Kilmer17]

I wasnt aware that donating sperm was a right.

Also, straight men who have engaged in a homosexual sex act will also be excluded.

As will any person who has used intervenous drugs amongst other prohibitions.

[Riggo-toni]

I thought they were banning gay men from donating sperm because of all the saliva left in the samples.

[SkinsNut73]

Originally posted by Riggo-toni

I thought they were banning gay men from donating sperm because of all the saliva left in the samples.

:laugh:

:whippin:

[airborneskins]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Also, straight men who have engaged in a homosexual sex act will also be excluded.

Once you go gay , you never go back!:laugh:

[bofluid]

I'd think that anti-gay groups were heavily involved in this decision. I imagine their fear of gays donating sperm is based on the fact that they're afraid they'll pass their gay genes on, which goes against their belief that homosexuality is not genetic and is instead caused by one's environment.

[Kilmer17]

Im fairly certain this was done to prevent the spread of aids.

Not saying the logic is right or wrong, just that it was what was used to make this rule.

[red zone]

Excellent example of profiling. Since this is a high risk group for STDs, why take a chance?

[The Showstopper]

thats a good thing

[Johnny Punani2]

good

[bofluid]

In many portions of the country Heterosexual males have higher HIV/AIDS rates then Gay men.

[ntotoro]

Homosexual men or men who have ever engaged (even once) in homosexual actions are forbidden from donating blood, so why should semen be any different?

Nick

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by bofluid

In many portions of the country Heterosexual males have higher HIV/AIDS rates then Gay men.

Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. These rules are put in place on a national basis, not region/area/portion specific.

[bofluid]

Originally posted by ntotoro

Homosexual men or men who have ever engaged (even once) in homosexual actions are forbidden from donating blood, so why should semen be any different?

Nick

We have a shortage of blood reserves in our hospitals...cutting out a group of people for no reason other than sexual orientation is wasteful, ignorant, and bigoted.

They test the blood after it's donated regardless of where it comes from. Eliminating gay donors is just throwing away blood, no matter how many gay donors may have HIV/AIDS.

The only conceivable reason to deny gay's the right to donate blood is that the AIDS/HIV rate is so high amongst their community that it makes it counterproductive for them to donate blood.

[Cdowwe]

good

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by bofluid

We have a shortage of blood reserves in our hospitals...cutting out a group of people for no reason other than sexual orientation is wasteful, ignorant, and bigoted.

Then take it up with whomever in the American Red Cross decides that. It's their organization, they can do whatever they like. It's not just the risk of HIV, but there are other pathogens which can be spread through homosexual behavior and no testing is 100% definitive. Men who have homosexual sex are also more at risk of spreading Hep B.

If the American Red Cross has guidelines like those, I think clinics not wanting to take semen, for similar reasons, are well within their rights.

Nick

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Are we in Nazi Germany-- I believe the term for this is Eugenics...

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by ChocolateCitySkin

Are we in Nazi Germany-- I believe the term for this is Eugenics...

Not quite

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by ChocolateCitySkin

Are we in Nazi Germany-- I believe the term for this is Eugenics...

Eugenics is selective breeding, not screening of groups of at-risk men. Should they next accept semen from admitted intravenous drug users?

Nick

[Funkyalligator]

This is solely based on ignorant homophobia....all sperm has to be tested anyway there is no reason for this law to be put in place...all anonymous donors are tested for a barrage of stds and other diseases...if not than the companies that were collecting the samples would be open for lawsuits from women that receive the anonymous sperm and are infected by any disease they might contain.....

[bofluid]

Originally posted by ntotoro

Then take it up with whomever in the American Red Cross decides that. It's their organization, they can do whatever they like. It's not just the risk of HIV, but there are other pathogens which can be spread through homosexual behavior and no testing is 100% definitive. Men who have homosexual sex are also more at risk of spreading Hep B.

If the American Red Cross has guidelines like those, I think clinics not wanting to take semen, for similar reasons, are well within their rights.

Nick

After rereading my post it became clear to me that it may have appeared that I was attacking you. I wasn't. My beef is with the Red Cross on this matter.

[Kilmer17]

Can people using the donated sperm choose where it comes from? IE, can they say the race, age, genetic makeup (hair eyes etc) of the donor?

Im curious.

But whether or not this is right or wrong morally, maybe it's something more simple as just an additional screening used to make the system more efficient.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

But whether or not this is right or wrong morally, maybe it's something more simple as just an additional screening used to make the system more efficient.

They would still have to check all of them for AIDS wouldn't they? And my guess would be that sperm from gay men is only a small percent so it would not make that much of an impact.

[Kilmer17]

From what I read, it's a much higher percentage than the overall percentage of gay men in the population.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Can people using the donated sperm choose where it comes from? IE, can they say the race, age, genetic makeup (hair eyes etc) of the donor?

I would certainly hope so, at least for some characteristics.

Otherwise, can you imagine your wife being pregnant, and you don't know what race the baby will be?