同性戀遭歧視 捐獻器官被拒絕

Sheryl Moore’s son lay on the bed before her. Soon, she knew, her 16-year-old boy would be taken off life support — another life lost to bullying.
謝麗爾·摩爾的兒子就躺在她的面前。她知道，不久生命支持系統就會被撤掉，她16歲的兒子即將離開人世，又一個因欺凌事件而凋零的生命。

Alexander “AJ” Betts Jr. attempted suicide in July 2013, the Des Moines Register reported at the time. He died shortly thereafter. Betts’s mother said he had been outed as gay about a year and half before his death. His friends told KCCI that schoolmates constantly made fun of him, ridiculing him for being gay, for being half African American, and for his cleft lip.
得梅因紀事報報道，小亞歷山大·貝茨於2013年7月自殺，並於不久後死亡。貝茨的母親說，自殺之前，兒子已出櫃一年半。他的朋友告訴KCCI，學校同學時常因爲他是同性戀，又有一半黑人血統還有他的兔脣而嘲笑、侮辱他。

Before he died, Betts had a request: Donate my organs. A 14-year-old boy received Betts’s heart, according to a letter Moore received, but she said his eyes were rejected.
去世之前，貝茨有一個請求：捐獻我的器官。摩爾收信後得知，一個十四歲的男孩移植了兒子的心臟，但她說他的眼睛被拒絕接收。

A Food and Drug Administration’s guidance for donor eligibility says men who have had sex with men in the past five years “should” be ruled as “ineligible” for donating certain tissues, labeling their behavior a “risk factor.”
食品和藥物管理局（Food and Drug Administration，以下簡稱FDA）捐贈資格指導說，在過去五年內和同性發生性關係的男人在捐贈特定組織時“應該”被判定爲“不合格的”捐贈者，因爲他們的一些行爲是存在“危險因素”的。

“My initial feeling was just very angry because I couldn’t understand why my 16-year-old son’s eyes couldn’t be donated just because he was gay,” Moore said, according to KCCI.
“最開始我感覺非常憤怒，我無法理解兒子的眼睛無法捐獻僅僅因爲他是同性戀。”據KCCI報道，摩爾如是說。

The FDA’s guidance reflects its ban on blood from men who have sex with men. That policy is a by-product of the AIDS crisis that ripped through the gay men’s community decades ago.
FDA的規定表明這是爲了禁止和同性產生性行爲的血液。這項政策是數十年之前在男同性戀羣體中爆發的艾滋危機的副產品。

The FDA explains: Men who have had sex with men “at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors” because “a history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV.”
FDA解釋說，和同性發生性行爲的男人“自1977年（美國艾滋病流行的開始）起就被禁止獻血”，因爲“同性之間的性行爲提高了某些特定傳染性疾病的傳播機率，包括艾滋病。”

Critics have long called the policy discriminatory, but the FDA says it’s necessary: “FDA’s deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation.”
一直以來，評論家抨擊該政策是歧視，但是FDA認爲這樣的措施是有必要的：“這樣的政策是基於某些類似艾滋病的特殊的傳染方式，即血液傳播，而這和同性性行爲是聯繫在一起的，而並不是對捐獻者性取向的歧視。”

In the Journal of the American Medical Association, Glenn Cohen, a bioethics law professor at the Harvard Law School, wrote that the United States should repeal the rules about blood. “We think it’s time for the FDA to take a serious look at this policy, because it’s out of step with peer countries, it’s out of step with modern medicine, it’s out of step with public opinion, and we feel it may be legally problematic,” he told CBS.
哈佛法學院生命倫理法教授格倫•科恩在美國醫學會雜誌發表說，美國應該廢止關於獻血的規定。他對CBS說，“我們認爲FDA是時候仔細研究這項政策了，因爲我們已經落後於同等國家，落後於現代醫學和公衆意見，而且它在法律上也是行不通的。

Cohen notes some contradictions in the FDA blood ban: Men who have sex with HIV-positive women or sex workers are banned for only a year.
科恩提到，在FDA關於獻血的禁令中存在幾個矛盾點：和女性艾滋病毒攜帶者發生性行爲的男人，以及性工作者只被禁止一年不得獻血。

Last summer, the American Medical Association voted to end the ban. According to Time magazine, William Kobler, a board member for the the association, said in a statement, “The lifetime ban on blood donation for men who have sex with men is discriminatory and not based on sound science.”
去年夏天，美國醫學會投票廢止該項禁令。協會董事會成員威廉·柯伯樂刊登在《時代》雜誌上的聲明稱，“關於一生禁止和同性發生性行爲的男性獻血的法令是具有歧視性，並且沒有科學依據的。”

In an e-mail to Time, a spokesman for the FDA wrote, “Although scientific evidence has not yet demonstrated that blood donated by [men who have sex with men] or a subgroup of these potential donors does not have a substantially increased rate of HIV infection compared to currently accepted blood donors, the FDA remains willing to consider new approaches to donor screening and testing.”
FDA發言人在給《時代》的一封郵件中寫道，“和當前接受的獻血者相比，儘管沒有科學證據表明和同性發生性行爲的男性，或者一組這樣的潛在捐獻者沒有增加艾滋病傳染的風險，FDA仍然願意考慮爲捐獻者檢測的新方法。”

Rules, guidelines and recommendations governing organ and tissue donation are not as clear as the FDA’s ban on blood. The nonprofit organization United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has a contract to facilitate organ procurement and transplants in United States. That contract covers “specified solid organs” such as hearts, livers, lungs and kidneys, but not eyes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On top of that, it adds, “Technically, all UNOS policies are voluntary.”
對於器官和組織捐獻的規定並沒有像獻血規定得這麼明確。非營利組織“器官共享聯合網絡”(以下簡稱UNOS)對於促進器官購買、移植有一份明確的合同。根據疾病控制和預防中心，合同內包含了“明確的”所指，如心臟、肝臟、肺和腎臟，但是沒有角膜。最重要的是，它補充道，“理論上，所有UNOS的政策都是基於自願的。”

In Betts’s case, his liver, lungs, kidneys and heart all found recipients. Unlike blood, as long as a recipient gives consent to any associated potential risks (such as HIV transmission) after counseling, certain organs can be donated. But because his mother could not confirm to the donor network that her son hadn’t been sexually active in the five years before his death, Betts’s eyes were rejected.
回到貝茨的案例上來，他的肝臟、肺、腎臟和心臟都找到了接納者。不像血液，只要被移植者在接受忠告後，同意接受任何連帶的潛在危險（如艾滋感染），該器官就可以被捐贈。但是，因爲他的母親無法向捐獻組織確認貝茨在去世前五年沒有發生經常發生性行爲，他的眼睛因此被拒絕捐獻。

“This is archaic,” Moore told KCCI. “And it is just silly that people wouldn’t get the life-saving assistance they need because of regulations that are 30 years old.”
“這實在太陳腐了，”摩爾對KCCI說，“僅僅因爲存在了30多年的老規矩，就使得一些人無法得到能拯救性命的救助，這是很愚蠢的決定。”