The Washington Post is reporting that the FDA is considering a revision to its current lifetime ban on blood donations by men who have sex with men.
from the article:
The change in policy is being recommended by the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks and America's Blood Centers, which collect virtually all the blood used for transfusions nationwide.
...
recommended that men be barred from donating for onlya year after having had sex with another man, treating them the same as other groups at increased risk for spreading sexually transmitted virus through donated blood.
okay, so still nothing that has to do with
actual risk behaviors. not a
ban anymore, just a prescribed
abstinence period. great. okay, so who doesn't have sex for a whole year? and people can have all sorts of unsafe heterosexual sex and still give blood, but one instance of gay sex and you're out?
thankfully, Lamda Legal provides a voice of reason once again.
"The blood deferral policy that exists is not based on science. It's based on inertia and in many cases stereotypes," said Jon Givner of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "The FDA should revisit the issue and adopt a deferral policy that is based on actual risk rather than sexual orientation."
it's not like they don't test all the blood. in reality, this policy does not make the blood supply safer. what it does instead is:
- reinforces stereotypes of sexual irresponsibility among gay men.
- alienates a significant portion of the population from blood donation (an important cause)
- forces men who have sex with men to lie about who they are and what they do if they want to give blood.
while that sounds a lot like the bush administration, it doesn't sound a whole lot like good science. the ban should be lifted
completely, and restrictions on who can donate and when should be based on actual potential exposure to HIV/Hepatitis C. (not using condoms, etc...)
Posted by: fournier