The New York Times Editorial Board ran this editorial a couple of days ago. Gay Men Should Be allowed to Give Blood.
"Although the American Red Cross regularly warns that the
national blood supply is
too low, the Food and Drug Administration
arbitrarily excludes a slice of the population from becoming a donor. Any man
who has had sex with another man since 1977 is “
deferred” — a euphemism for “banned ”
since the deferral lasts a lifetime.
This rule dates to the mid-1980s, when H.I.V. had just
emerged in this country and scientists knew little about the virus. The F.D.A.
was understandably worried about protecting the blood supply. But what was
reasonable 30 years ago is now unjustifiable.
Recently, a federal advisory committee recommended moving to
a one-year deferral; the F.D.A. will consider that advice on Dec. 2. Even a
one-year deferral would be excessive, though, because it would still exclude
the majority of adult gay men.
The F.D.A. argues that deferral is necessary because men who
have sex with men are, as a group, at higher risk for contracting H.I.V. and
other infections transmissible by blood. It also points out that there is a lag
between when someone contracts a virus and when a blood test can detect it.
(All donated blood is tested before it can be released to hospitals.) But the
lag time for H.I.V. is nowhere near a year. It is about two weeks using
advanced techniques.
The F.D.A.’s policy is illogical on several counts. For one,
it groups all gay men into one excluded category. Why should a married gay man
who always uses condoms be treated the same as a single gay man who never uses
them? Another group under a lifetime ban is people who have accepted money or
drugs in exchange for sex since 1977, which suggests that the agency thinks gay
sex carries the same health risks as prostitution. Meanwhile, a man or woman
who has had heterosexual sex with an intravenous drug user, or with someone who
has tested positive for H.I.V., is deferred for only a year.
Several nations, including Argentina, Australia, Hungary,
Japan and Sweden, have one-year deferrals. Australia changed to a one-year
policy in 2000. In 2010,
a study there found “no evidence of a
significantly increased risk of transfusion-transmitted” H.I.V. A more sensible
strategy is used in Italy and Spain, which screen for high-risk sexual
practices, like unprotected sex or sex with multiple partners, and then defer
donors on a case-by-case basis.
If the F.D.A. were to follow this approach, it would need to
study how best to phrase a questionnaire, though it’s clear that more
individualized risk assessment can work.
A study published in 2013 found that Italy’s policy did not
lead to a disproportionate increase in the number of H.I.V.-positive donors.
The F.D.A.’s policy is out of step with medical research. It
stigmatizes gay men and unnecessarily limits the pool of possible blood donors.
The agency could make a change without compromising the blood supply." ~ The New York Times Editorial Board, November 27, 2014
I wrote on this subject before and find it incredible that this rule is in effect. Certainly there is no argument that all blood should be tested before being sent out, but to have an arbitrary law that forbids on the basis of "being gay" is just pure stupid. Sometimes it is voodoo that we do.