| Outdated blood drive policies are discriminatory (3/08) | | Print | |
| Written by Michael Lazarus | |
|
In the weeks before the Lowell Blood Drive on March 12, signs adorned the hallways debunking myths about donating. Misconceptions such as “my blood type is so common, you probably don’t need it” and “they’ll take too much blood and I’ll feel weak” were laid to rest. One statement was noticeably absent, though: “They don’t let gay men donate blood.”
It’s a sad truth that the Food and Drug Administration continues to ban men who have had homosexual experiences. “Men who have had sex with other men (MSM), at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors,” according to the FDA’s Web site (fda.gov). The policy does not differentiate MSM on a basis of risky or non-risky behavior. A man who has had one isolated homosexual experience and used protection is treated the same as a man who has had many male partners and who did not use protection. This policy originated in 1983 when little was known about AIDS. The first HIV antibody test was not available until 1985 and seeing that infection rates were higher for MSM, the FDA made this precautionary decision to ensure the safety of the blood supply. But times have changed. The FDA needs to stop living in the age of GRID (Gay-Related Immunodeficiency Disease) and permit healthy MSM to donate blood. While MSM are still at a higher risk of contracting AIDS, the rate is decreasing. More is known about the virus and more is being done to prevent it. People are practicing safer sex and are being tested regularly much more than in 1983. One of the biggest fears surrounding HIV and blood donations is the window period, the time between infection and detection, ranging from two weeks to a month. It is possible for a man to unknowingly donate infected blood because the antibodies are not yet detectable. This is a worst-case scenario. Fortunately, current nucleic acid based tests shorten this window period to around 12 days, decreasing the chance of tainted blood slipping through the cracks. Ideally, the testing would be merely an extra precaution. Those who choose to donate are concerned about the well-being of others and would not donate if they thought they were at risk. Accordingly, the three largest blood centers in the U.S. — the Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks and America’s Blood Centers — have all advised the FDA to reverse its policy regarding MSM on the grounds that it is scientifically unwarranted. In 2003, Spain lifted its ban on MSM donors. Australia’s new policy defers MSM for 12 months, the same waiting period for people who have had sex with a prostitute or have had a piercing. The FDA needs to follow suit. The problem with outright banning MSM donors is two-fold. As the nation’s blood supply is constantly in a shortage, the policy eliminates a significant group of potential donors. These discriminatory policies have also antagonized some organizations to the point that they refuse to host blood drives, making it harder for eligible donors to donate. Most recently, San Jose State University banned campus blood drives due to the FDA’s discriminatory policies. SJSU has over 30,000 students. The safety of our nation’s blood supply is, and should be, of great concern of the FDA. All reasonable precautions should be taken to protect it. MSM donors will only harm the supply by withholding their blood, driving the supply to a dangerous low. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
to listen.
