On Wednesday, the FDA reiterated its policy that gay men (actually, any man who has had even ONE sexual encounter with a man) are banned for life from donating blood, a policy instituted in 1983, when there was a very real threat of contamination of the blood supply.
On their web site, the agency gave a laundry list of reasons why this is the case, including the following: "Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing."
However, other respected blood donation organizations lifted their lifetime ban in March 2006, concentrating on sexual contact within one year.
The Red Cross, the international blood association AABB and America's Blood Centers proposed replacing the lifetime ban with a one-year deferral following male-to-male sexual (MSM) contact.
New and improved tests, which can detect HIV-positive donors within just 10 to 21 days of infection, make the lifetime ban unnecessary, the blood groups told the FDA. (Source)
In a word, critics say the FDA policy is discrimination.
Many recall the ban on all Haitians from donating blood which was also instituted in 1983, but lifted in 1990 in both the U.S. and Canada after Haitian activists raised hell.
Though the FDA agrees that the policy may defer many healthy donors, it still does not see its policy as discriminatory.
The estimated HIV risk from a unit of blood is currently about one per 2 million in the United States, according to the agency.
If people want to take "risk" into consideration, what about the scores of women who have had sex with men who've had sex with men (knowingly or unknowingly)?
As it now stands, gay men, anyone who has ever been paid for sex or anyone who has used intravenous drugs are under the lifetime ban.
Comments: (123)
Add a comment
By: Chaz on 5/25/2007 1:08PM
It is an utter bliss of discrimination. Red Cross is always yelling we need blood, we need blood, just because a person is gay..Does not mean that their blood is a sureness for HIV. Welllll FCC is the Government and that's the Government for you
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: katj360 on 5/25/2007 1:50PM
Is the gay male lifetime ban on blood donation discriminatory? It sure is. But unfortunately these are the precautions that must be taken when dealing with possible infections of others. You may not be infected, but your lifestyle makes you more susceptible. I think they should come up with a ban on promiscuous people too. (just a suggestion)
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Robbie Rob on 5/25/2007 2:27PM
The risk involved in transmitting potential diseases (like HIV/AIDS) from homosexual sex is too great to risk. I know that sounds like discrimination but I certainly don't feel that way. Homophobic, I'm not....but, I do understand the need in taking any necessary precautions that might keep the public at large a little safer.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Cecil Jones on 5/25/2007 4:40PM
HIV is nothing to joke about. The people who must receive blood are very sick. If a person is at increased risk of transporting a disease, why should we place the sick and dying at increased risk of problems? If the HIV ban were lifted for homosexual activity, why not lift the ban for people in jail getting done against their will. If we lift the ban just a little, then it opens the door to all sorts of things. The Canadian Red Cross went bankrupt by cutting corners. Blood is big business and people could do some scandalous things. It could surprise you to find out some dirty little secrets about this industry. Thank God we have "Blood Laws" to protect the guilty.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: BOBBY on 5/26/2007 8:31AM
I agree with this ban homosexual men are high risk for hiv and hepatitis. During surgery I had a blood transfusion in 1986, and I have been diagnosis with hepatitis c. Back in the 80's they did not scan the blood the way they do today, but we still have to becareful I'm living proof of how slack thing used to be.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: BOBBY on 5/25/2007 10:38PM
A classmate of mine who use to be an IV drug user supported his heroin addiction by selling his blood to the blood banks. Several times a week he did this for 5years before he was told he can no longer donate blood, because he has full blown AIDS. Can you imagine the amount of people who was expose to his tainted blood, before they started checking the blood for disease. My reason for sharing this story is to let other know how incompetent the blood banks were about who donates blood. there are many people today paying the price with there lives for this travesty.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: M Garri on 5/27/2007 8:15AM
No. This is not discrimination. HIV antibodies take 3-6 months before they are detected in the bloodstream. Therefore, if you contracted the disease one month ago, it may not be detectable in the system. The FDA does not have time to test, and retest, and retest blood samples. The demand is too high and too many people need blood in hospitals. This is simply a precautionary measure because, it is a statistical fact that gay men are the #1 population. Therefore, it would make sense in attempt to reduce the amount of infected blood in the blood pool. This does not mean that every gay man is infected, and every straight person dis not infected. The reason that gay men are the higest population is because anal sex is the most risky in terms or transmission rate. this is because of the rupture or rectal membranes during the sex act. This increases the possibility of entrance into the bloodstream, for HIV to enter the body. This is simply a safety measure. This is not discrimination, in my opinion.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: markofreason on 5/28/2007 1:23AM
I have no problems with "bans"; as a Gay African-American Male, I do believe that this particular "ban" is discriminatory. In my humble opinon; EVERYONE who gives blood "ought" be tested-not just for the virus that "supposedly" to causes AIDS but for many other diseases as well. The fact that the "ban"
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: didusaythat on 5/29/2007 9:24AM
Discrimination or cautious. Please don't use the blood bank to argue discrimination laws. There are too many avenues to prove your point without risking my health or health of others. Too many promiscuous people living risky life styles not to mention those living living in secret denial of the sexual preference. Choose another avenue please leave the blood bank out of it.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: LeToya on 5/27/2007 10:13PM
I hope their blood isn't permissable
Reply to this Comment | Report This