Friday, May 06, 2005

Science, Schmience!

This one's for Brad to explain. How can I present both sides of the new homophobic FDA policy?

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.
...

"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.
...

"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."
You see, this is why you can't just present both sides of every argument. Often times, one side of an argument is completely indefensible, and I won't do a "Chris Matthews" and allow the equivalence of a crazy opinion and a sound one.

3 comments:

Brad said...

Good God, guys.

From the site...
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.

This is simply a true, scientific fact...they do pose a higher-than-average risk...and you don't get to be selective about what research you accept (the mantra you would cram down the throats of those who think that there's something to be said for the notion of there being a Creator)and you don't get to superimpose motives in reverse.

Car insurance is higher when you're 19 than when you're 32 because of what other 19-year-olds have done. It sucks, but it's still a reasonable, responsible policy and it certainly isn't motivated by bigotry. To suggest as much means that Progressive Insurance has a "thing" against 19-year-olds.

You guys need to distinguish between "really unfortunate" and "deliberately evil". Sheesh.


Further from the site...
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."


It's not a policy based on bigotry (ya' fuckin' nutball!)...it's a policy based on research. Declaring the motives of others based on your emotional reaction to their conclusion is bullshit.

Further, that second paragraph is the most slanted pile of half-truths I've seen in a while. While yes, there is, in fact a steadily increasing trend of heterosexual transmission, the rate at which it is increasing is extremely slight (though it is "steady") and further, the total level of infection on a percentage basis within the gay community is about 8-10 times that of the straight community (despite its gradual, steady increase).

Are there wonderful, responsible, healthy gay men who should be able to donate and who will unfortunately not be able to? Yes. Is that extremely unfortunate? Of course. But the simple fact of the matter is that gay men are exponentially the most sexually irresponsible and consequently infected demographic out there. While I join you in being absolutely furious that responsible, healthy men have to pick up the tab for the actions of others, the FDA making that call as policy is a reasonable one.

The notion that the FDA "hates the fags" (which, for the record is a repulsive phrase in my book) is simply disingenuous.

lifeintheG said...

This is simply a true, scientific fact...they do pose a higher-than-average risk...

The point here is that there's a risk taking any body fluids from anyone - whether it's blood or semen. My father actually contracted Hepatitis from a blood transfusion some 20 years ago. I mention that only to point out that there is risk in taking fluids. In other words, they're testing everyone's semen at these banks and putting them aside for 6 months to make sure it's safe, no matter who the donor might be. But they're keeping homosexuals out of the process for no sound reason. Anyone can have HIV, we know that, the smart ones among us use condoms to prevent its spread. We aren't using "odds" to prevent AIDS.

You guys need to distinguish between "really unfortunate" and "deliberately evil"

I'm looking through my post and I don't appear to have used the term evil in this case. I think it's just willful ignorance. For that matter, I really couldn't care less about gay sperm donors - it's not the sort of thing to fire up one's guns - it's the ridiculousness of the policy that irritates me. But in this case, I wouldn't characterize it as evil. The pro-cancer people, they're evil.

there is, in fact a steadily increasing trend of heterosexual transmission, the rate at which it is increasing is extremely slight (though it is "steady") and further, the total level of infection on a percentage basis within the gay community is about 8-10 times that of the straight community

If I cared, I'd check your numbers, but really that's beside the point. The article was simply saying that just because you're straight doesn't necessarily mean you're HIV negative. Every sample has to be tested, so why the bias against gays? Would you take blood that wasn't tested if they told you that the donor was straight?

The notion that the FDA "hates the fags" (which, for the record is a repulsive phrase in my book) is simply disingenuous.

I'm glad you find the term repulsive, but no one at DoG made that claim either.

lifeintheG said...

This "Christian" group likes the term though...