Bad Blood?

What if you could potentially save nearly two million people with a simple regulatory policy change?

That question, according to a recent study by Ayako Miyashita and  Gary J. Gates for the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute, is not rhetorical. Ending the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) longstanding ban on blood donations by men who have sex with men (MSM) could result in an estimated 360,600 men donating an additional 615,300 pints of blood each year, an increase of 2 to 4 percent.

The FDA notes that its ban on blood from MSM donors emerged from policies early in the HIV/AIDS epidemic, though the current policy was formulated in 1992. This ban includes any man who has had sex with a man since 1977, which embraces Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, and the Millennial Generation. However, the FDA also acknowledges that:

The Health and Human Service’s Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability (ACBSA) met to discuss the FDA MSM deferral policy on June 10-11, 2010. . . . The committee found the current donor deferral policies to be suboptimal in permitting some potentially high risk donations while preventing some potentially low risk donations [emphasis ours], but voted in favor of retaining the existing policy, and identified areas requiring further research.

Potential responsible MSM donors are faced with the ethical dilemma: Lie about prior sexual practices when donating blood or abstain from blood donor drives. That we use the term MSM to classify this population suggests some of the ambiguities and complexities of sexual identity, which further complicates the issue. In epidemiology, behavior (MSM) trumps socially constructed identity (gay or bisexual men). Further complicating matters is the question, What is sex?, which in the case of some sexual practices, as I pointed out here last spring, is not a settled matter.

Moreover, Miyashita and Gates note that:

In recent years, both the United Kingdom and Canada have made changes to their laws shifting from an indefinite deferral of MSM to a twelve-month and five-year deferral, respectively. In Mexico, new regulations have established criteria for blood donation based on risk factors for transmission of blood-borne diseases.

Blood has both a physiological dimension and a cultural dimension. As a physiological phenomenon it may be studied empirically, with an evidence based developed for sound policy. As a cultural phenomenon, blood exercises an imaginative power that is diffuse and pervasive.

 

About Thomas Lawrence Long

Associate professor-in-residence, School of Nursing, University of Connecticut; editor and writing coach
This entry was posted in Public Policy. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Bad Blood?

  1. Thomas Lawrence Long says:

    A letter from officers of the GLMA to the chair of the FDA blood products advisory committee calling for a removal of unscientific restrictions: http://www.glma.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/GLMA%20Comments%20to%20FDA%20on%20Blood%20Donor%20Policy_2014.pdf

  2. Thomas Lawrence Long says:

    Reported today in the NY Times: FDA Lifting Ban on Gay Blood Donors http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/health/fda-lifting-ban-on-gay-blood-donors.html

  3. Thomas Lawrence Long says:

    However, as a piece by Adam Chandler in the Atlantic Monthly observes, this FDA policy change imposes a new bias against gay men: Sexual abstinence for a year. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/fda-lifting-ban-gay-male-blood-donors-celibate/384032/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s