FDA Recommends Barring Gay Men From Being Sperm Donors

By Linda Orlando

Gay-rights activists all across the country are up in arms about the recent announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has implemented new rules recommending that gay men should not be allowed to donate sperm anonymously to sperm banks. The new guidelines are part of a broader set of cell and tissue donation regulations. Although critics are accusing the FDA of stigmatizing all gay men, the organization has refused to back down from the recommendation, stating that gay men as a group pose a higher-than-average risk of donating sperm carrying HIV or AIDS. Opponents to the measure believe the FDA should instead develop a screening process focusing on any high-risk sexual behavior, instead of focusing on homosexual men. Kevin Cathcart is executive director of Lambda Legal, a national organization that campaigns for the civil rights of homosexuals. Calling the new FDA guidelines "a policy based on bigotry," Cathcart goes on to say, "The part I find most offensive—and a little frightening—is that it isn't based on good science. 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." Lambda Legal proposes that a better screening procedure would be based on sexual behavior, not sexual orientation. Prospective donors, gay or straight, would be rejected summarily if they had engaged in unprotected sex in the previous year. But the FDA believes the broader exclusion is a wise decision even though it may impact gay men who do practice safe sex.

It is uncertain whether or not the FDA guideline will be as strict as a legal one, but most doctors and fertility clinics are expected to adhere to it, and many already are anyway. However, there are some clinics, particularly in California, that are turning a blind eye to the guidelines and actively seeking gay sperm donors. Such clinics believe that adequate safety assurances can be provided by screening processes such as initial testing, then freezing the sperm in quarantine, and then testing the donor again six months later before using the sperm for insemination. Other screening methods are not as secure, such as rejecting prospective donors if they have engaged in unprotected sex in the previous 12 months with an HIV-positive person, an illegal drug user, or someone whose HIV status is unknown. But this type of screening relies on the honesty and truthfulness of the prospective donor, so it is far from foolproof. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine agrees with the FDA regulations, saying that the main concern is for the health of the recipient, not the civil rights of people who want to be sperm donors.

The FDA’s provision will probably have the most effect on lesbian couples who want a child and prefer to use a gay man’s sperm for artificial insemination. Although the FDA’s rules do not prohibit gay men from serving as "directed" sperm donors—specifically chosen by the recipient—some lesbian couples do not have a gay friend they know and trust well enough to be the biological father of their child. Some lesbian couples prefer to receive sperm from a gay donor because they feel a gay man would be more receptive to the concept of a family headed by a same-sex couple. This argument is confusing, since an anonymous sperm donor would have no idea who is receiving his sperm, so his being "receptive to the concept" would have no bearing on a lesbian couple using his sperm to conceive a child. There is a great deal of public outcry in the gay community about the FDA guidelines, claiming that they are nothing short of discrimination. But apparently lesbian couples want to actively discriminate against heterosexual donors by specifically asking for sperm from a gay donor, and that’s okay. This, of course, seems to completely negate the common argument by gays and lesbians that homosexuality is not genetically passed on, and homosexuals should be treated no differently than heterosexuals.

There are hundreds of Internet blogs and newsgroups abuzz with discussion about this issue. As one online supporter of the FDA guidelines argues, "Homosexuals contradict themselves when convenient, and you can’t have it both ways. When they want to play victim, they just say they're victims of genetics and can't help it. When they want to appeal to human rights and choice, they say we're all free to choose our orientation." The basic concept of anonymous sperm donation is that it is anonymous, and as long as there are plenty of donors, the exclusion of any group of potential donors won’t affect the supply of viable sperm.