In the United States, if a man has had sex with another man at least once since 1977, he is banned for life from giving blood. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has had some form of this “gay blood ban” since 1983, when the risk of transmitting HIV through transfusion was first recognized.
There was a medical need to institute the ban at the time, especially given the technology available then, and there should be a medical reason to lift it. Many physicians think there is.
Last year, the American Medical Association voted to end the ban. In a statement, board of trustees member William Kobler called it “discriminatory and not based on sound science.” And the agencies that supply the country with donated blood — AABB, America’s Blood Centers and the Red Cross — all say the prohibition should end.
Specifically, they say the criteria for blood donors with increased risk factors should be consistent. Currently the FDA imposes a temporary restriction on other donors: Women or straight men who have had sex with someone with HIV or AIDS are allowed to give blood after a year. The same goes for people who have sex with a prostitute.
A monogamous gay man, however, is forbidden from donating blood.
The FDA has said it wants to protect patients receiving donated blood, and a history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk of getting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. At the end of 2010, about half of people living with an HIV diagnosis in the U.S. — 440,408 out of 872,990 — were gay and bisexual men, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
But the increased risk among gay men doesn’t warrant the length of the ban, especially since all donated blood is tested before it’s given to patients. It’s true there’s a “window period” right after infection, when a test might not detect HIV. That means someone could actually have HIV and be infectious but test negative for it.
But why keep the ban, especially when blood is tested after it’s taken from donors? Why not have similar temporary restrictions for gay men that also apply to straight men and women? The FDA can ensure the safety of the nation’s donated blood supply without unnecessarily singling out a particular population.
A blood safety committee within the FDA discussed whether to change the “gay blood ban” in 2010. It decided not to, but it did identify areas for further research, such as whether an alternative screening strategy for high-risk donors could assure blood safety. Those studies are ongoing.
Many agree the lifetime limit is, at best, outdated and, at worst, stigmatizing. Everyone wants to ensure donated blood is safe. But the country also needs to ensure blood donors are treated fairly, especially given that medical and technological advances make it possible. The current rules unnecessarily restrict a certain population from helping others.