Doron Dorfman

My project examines the relationship between PrEP, a prophylactic HIV drug, the recognition of gay marriage and gay families, and public trust in blood donation policies. Current FDA policy forbids blood banks from accepting blood from men who have had sex with other men in the previous year. In an online experiment conducted with a nationally representative sample, I examined how public support for the blood ban varies with gay men’s marital status, parental status, and use of PrEP. For the experiment, I randomly assigned eight variations of a vignette with these characteristics. The findings indicate that even when laypeople are educated about the health benefits of the new PrEP medication – which has been proven to prevent HIV infection – they are more reluctant to use blood donated by those taking the drug than by those who are not. Furthermore, the only category of gay men who were trusted to be able to donate blood was married couples with children (as compared to married couples with no children, single parents, and single gay men). Those two findings raise questions regarding the role that stigma might play in the implementation of health care policies and in the understanding of legal institutions such as marriage and family in the post-Obergefell era. This project also proposes legislative solutions in order to lift the blood ban restrictions.

Related publication:
 

• Dorfman, Doron. "The PrEP Penalty." Boston College Law Review 63, no. 3 (March 2022): 813–886.

My project examines themes such as mistrust, legality and individualism in American society through the lens of disability studies and through the study of interpersonal, everyday interactions in the shadow of law. The project highlights tacit judgments regarding the authenticity of disability claims. I argue that laypeople have unstated assumptions about the “true nature” of others’ disabilities and regarding the motives that drive their actions in utilizing disability law. These unstated assumptions fall under what I call the “public perception of disability con,” i.e., the fear that people take advantage of accommodations and disability-related rights by faking disabilities. This suspicion discourages people with disabilities from claiming and maintaining their legal rights. It thus prevents their equal participation in social life. Individuals are suspected of only pretending to have disabilities in order to receive benefits or “perks” such as favorable parking spot, skipping lines at theme parks, gaining privileges with regard to their pets (which they present as service animals), or receiving accommodations in academic settings. I study these four “benefits” in my experiments and combine the results with observational data collected from a national survey and in-depth interviews to provide a rich account of the studied socio-legal phenomenon with the goal of ameliorating the stigma around it.

Related publication:
 

• Dorfman, Doron. "Fear of the Disability Con: Perceptions of Fraud and Special Rights Discourse." Law & Society Review 53, no. 4 (2019): 1051–1091, https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12437.