Enough To Make Your Blood Boil
By Keith Boykin

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced that it will maintain its Reagan-era AIDS policy banning gay men from donating blood. The decision came despite arguments by the Red Cross and several other medical groups that the ban was ”medically and scientifically unwarranted” thanks to new and improved tests that can detect HIV-positive blood within just 10 to 21 days of infection. The ban was first enacted in the early days of the AIDS epidemic in 1983 to prevent the HIV virus from entering into the nation’s blood supply. Although there are strong arguments on both sides of this issue, after weighing the pros and cons, I think the FDA got it wrong again.

Current FDA policy relies heavily on self disclosure by potential blood donors. Before giving blood, potential male donors are asked if they have ever had sex with another man since 1977. If they answer yes, then they are banned forever from donating blood. It doesn’t matter if they had sex once in 1978. It doesn’t matter that they’re in a monogamous relationship. It doesn’t even matter if they’re HIV-negative. The policy prohibits any man who says he has had sex with another man in the past 30 years from donating blood.

The key word here is “says.” One of the major flaws of the gay donor ban is that it relies entirely on self-disclosure. If a gay man chooses to give blood and denies that he has had sex with another man, there is nothing to stop him from doing so. That’s because there is no way to verify that information independently. The man who lies about his sexual orientation is free to donate blood, but the man who tells the truth is blocked. That makes no sense.

Rather than focusing its blood security efforts on overly broad questions that stigmatize gay men and encourage dishonesty, the FDA should focus its efforts on testing the blood that is donated. That’s also a part of the blood security strategy. All donated blood is supposed to be tested for HIV through various means designed to detect the presence of the HIV antibodies or the virus itself.

For the rest of the article, click here.