Lifetime Ban on Gay Blood Donation Stands
by Gay men are currently prohibited from giving blood. This lifetime ban has been in place since 1985. Several other countries, including Canada also have similar gay male donation bans.
The Red Cross, similar blood-collection organizations, and multiple gay rights groups spoke out against this ban to The Health and Human Services Committee on Friday. The Red Cross recommended that the FDA change the lifetime ban to a one-year waiting period on donations after male-to-male sex. They call the current lifetime ban on gay male donations, “scientifically unwarranted.”
Gay rights groups spoke out against the “policy discrimination against gay and bisexual men.” They make the point that a heterosexual person having sex with an HIV-positive partner can not give blood for one year after incident….while gay men face a lifetime ban.
The committee heard emotional testimony from people like, Nathan Schaefer. Nathan is from the Gay Men’s Health Crisision, and said most gay men practice safe sex, are HIV-negative, and should be considered a low-risk donor group.
I wont get into the all the reasons that gay and bisexual men are an at risk group for STD’s, but this article (here) may add some context to why they specifically are singled out as a high risk group.
On the other hand of the debate was emotional testimony from people like, Corey Dubin. Corey, a hemophiliac infected with HIV from a tainted blood product, said, “The fact that it’s discriminatory does not mean it’s wrong if it’s in the interest of public health.’’
While most of the meeting and testimony was focused on safety, one interesting point made by gay rights advocates was about the occasional blood shortages in the U.S. A UCLA study estimated that changing the blood donation policy from a lifetime ban to a one-year deferral would yield about 89,000 additional pints of blood annually; thereby, reducing any shortages.
None the less, the Health and Human Services Committee recommended that the FDA not change the ban on gay men donating blood, but they did call for more and new research on alternative policies. They also noted the flaws in the current rules. It is up to the FDA to have the final say on blood rules and regulations.
At the end of the day, the debate is not about discrimination, gay rights, blood supply, etc…. It is about the safety of the blood. Blood in mass means little if it is not safe. The donor takes little risk in giving the blood. The majority of the risk goes to the receiver. An anemic, someone with a cold, someone that weighs less than 110 lbs, etc… may desperately want to give blood, but they can’t. That does not mean that blood services or the FDA is discriminating against anemic people, sick people and skinny people.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Post CommentTulan
On June 12, 2010 at 9:13 pm
I thought everybody had to be tested before they gave blood. It seems a bit odd that a group would be banned when we are usually short of blood donations.
banosorio
On June 12, 2010 at 10:11 pm
very informative.
Phoenix Montoya
On June 13, 2010 at 12:11 am
I guess health people have their own reason if they want to excempt anemic peole, but people having colds? Or gay? Whats the point of that? I think some of them only fear gay people as carriers of HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases via blood. But not all of them. They sould also be given a chance… and not be discreminated. They are also people like us.
Good article. Liked it!
Jimmy Shilaho
On June 13, 2010 at 5:13 am
I didn’t know of such a ban.
papaleng
On June 14, 2010 at 1:27 am
Isn’t it discriminating? but I guess, health authorities have basis on why they are prohibiting getting blood donations from gays.
Dr, Marshall
On June 16, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Your ending sentence is insulting, as a person who have given blood for many years, and as a scientist I can assure you that all blood is screened for STIs before it is admitted for usage. Just because a person is a male that has sex with other males, albeit a person who is born homosexual, or bisexual does not mean that they should be banned simply because of their sexual orientation. If this is about safety then what does that say when we already pre-screen all the blood that comes in? If we already test or every STI, simple colds and infections then what is the purpose of banning healthy people from donating. Not all gay people, in fact only a minority are diseased and many are in healthy, committed relationships. Because the blood is pre-screened for STIs what else can you call this ban other than blatant discrimination?
Finally your ending sentence is an insult to a whole group of people because you are comparing underweight, and anemic people to that of homosexual people. My years as a doctor have shown me that homosexual patients are just as healthy if not more so than there heterosexual counterparts. Most of them give blood despite the ban. If all closet donating gay people stopped giving blood tomorrow we would have an even greater shortage.
Jo Oliver
On June 17, 2010 at 1:15 am
Dr, Marshall,
I don’t recall advocating for gay males to be banned from giving blood! My closing statement was about the safety of blood in general, whether that be risky heterosexual behavior or risky homosexual behavior, someone with a cold or an anemic, etc.. The point was that safety does not equate to discrimination. Safety should be the primary priority regardless of who or what the donor is or is not!
There is supporting evidence why this is still an issue and why homosexual men are at the center of the issue. See-http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm
“Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today’s highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.
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.
Male to male sex has been associated with an increased risk of HIV infection at least since 1977. Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA. MSM continue to account for the largest number of people newly infected with HIV.
Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. ”
The FDA has backed up their decision to impose a lifetime ban, and yes, I agree that routine screening for a group at such a high risk just doesn’t cut it. However, I do not agree that a lifetime ban is fair to gay men who would like to be blood donors.