Experts debate lifting blood donation ban on gay men in stable relationships

Men who have sex with men are not permitted to donate blood in the United States, Canada and many other countries. This ban was designed to stop the spread of HIV through blood transfusions and was implemented with broad support in 1983.

But times have changed, and the rule no longer makes sense, say experts in HIV research writing in the current issue of the Canadian Medical Assn. Journal. The ban on donations from gay men was necessary early in the HIV epidemic when there was no way to screen for HIV antibodies in blood and the disease was appearing largely in that group.

But rigorous screening tests now exist, and rules permit people in stable, monogamous relationships to donate blood even though HIV infection now occurs in a broad swath of people, both homosexual and heterosexual. "...donors who have had heterosexual unprotected sex with multiple partners are not necessarily prevented from donating, provided the heterosexual donor claims to be aware of the sexual background of each of his or her sexual partners," the authors wrote.

Similarly, gay men in stable, long-term monogamous relationships should be allowed to donate blood after a deferral period -- a waiting period -- of one year, the editorial states. Allowing this group to donate would increase the blood supply while not significantly endangering it. They estimate that allowing gay men to donate after a one-year deferral period would result in a risk of HIV in one unit of blood for every 11 million units collected.

The ban on donations from gay men is a matter of growing controversy. Both the HIV Medical Assn. in the United States, the American Red Cross and the American Assn. of Blood Banks has expressed support for a change in rules to allow donation after a deferral period.

"The current policy is counterproductive in terms of loss of donors, loss of good will, student protests, donor boycotts and lawsuits, among other negative effects," the authors wrote.

-- Shari Roan

Photo credit: Julie Markes  /  For The Times

Comments

[Rob]

This has never made much sense to me. So two gay men who are in a committed relationship are not allowed to donate blood while some of us heterosexuals sleep around with anything that walks(not me BTW) and can donate. Makes no sense at all.

[detrich]

the ban was probably made based on "medical" findings and not-so-much "lifestyle" causes...

micro tissue tearing & fragmentation during non-protected intercourse is what leads to blood exchange between partners. and, rectal intercourse is, of course, more prone to such tearing, as opposed to vaginal intercourse...

it would've made more sense for them to ban blood donations from both hetero and homosexual individuals who admit to regularly engaging in rectal intercourse in general, as opposed to just homosexual men. but, in due time perhaps.

[Mark]

Blatant discrimination. If they don't accept "gay blood" in order to keep the blood supply safe, they're essentially admitting that they don't test the blood supply completely. In other words, nobody is really safe.

[Joe]

How many of you know a hetero who got AIDS by having sex with a woman?

[Brian]

> How many of you know a hetero who got AIDS by having sex with a woman?

Magic Johnson comes to mind...

[M]

Joe:

how many people do you know that donate blood on a regular basis?

[theborghomeworld]

sigh, these articles never fully explain the issue. i am not saying the issue shouldn't be investigated, but that there should be more background given.

there are no fool-proof tests. any test can have false-positive and false-negatives. the current ban is designed to remove a high risk population, reducing the pre-test probability that a donor has HIV.

that way, if the test fails, at least the population is relatively low risk, reducing the change of transmitting HIV.

should we allow donations from men who have sex with men? maybe, or maybe not. but i wish these articles would explain the above risk issues.

[Craig]

It is impossible to 'test the blood supply completely.' Besides the cost, the tests won't show infections before there is an biological response by the body. I don't think it's necessary to exclude all men who have had sex with a man since 1977, but it is necessary to exclude some people who will be offended. It is also important to make incremental changes that won't scare the people who need transfusions.

[Dave]

I donated blood every 8 weeks beginning a few months after my 16th birthday; I stopped donating blood 8 years ago in 2002. In all that time, I missed donation dates *maybe* 10 times, and always went right back as soon as I could. I did this because as a Boy Scout, I volunteered for blood donation campaigns, and got to ask questions of the folks who ran them. I came to believe that donating blood was one small and very easy way for me to help folks who really, really need it. So I donated as often as possible.

And then I got tired of being asked insulting questions, and being forced to dishonor myself, deny who I am, and lie in order to do a good deed. Because in order to be eligible to donate blood, I had to answer "no" each time I donated blood, when I was asked, "Have you had sex with another man, even once, since 1977?"

Now, I firmly believe that there is nothing wrong with sex between consenting adults, however it is practiced. But more than anything else, this question reveals the ignorance and biases of the folks who implemented this ridiculous policy. Because while I am a gay man, and while I have indeed had sex with another man since 1977, I have never had anal sex--the specific type of sex implicated in most all sexually-transmitted HIV infections--with another human being, period. The implication--that if a man has sex with another man he is filthy and unclean, regardless of what science and medicine have to say on the subject--is as ridiculous today as it was when this rule was implemented. And by virtue of remaining a prominent example of institutionalize anti-gay bigotry, the existence of the rule becomes more vile and disgusting with each passing year, if that is possible.

I still do my best to help others when I can; we are, after all, contributing to our own quality of life when we show concern and compassion for other folks. However, I simply cannot bring myself to get back in line at a blood donation center, where the rules state that I must deny an essential part of who and what I am if I want to be allowed to help people in this particular way.

[Posterwolf]

Joe wrote:

"How many of you know a hetero who got AIDS by having sex with a woman?"

Magic Johnson. Half of the HIV cases in the African continent.

And what about women who got HIV from their heterosexual partners, don't they count?

Please tell me you're not relying on "I've never heard of a hetero who got HIV from a woman" to justify having unprotected sex with a woman whose status you don't know.

[H]

I think it would be idiotic to continue with this ban. Gay men are people too and allot of them are very paranoid about their health and get their partners checked before they even decide to do stuff with them. Since they were so worried about the spread of HIV and there is now a test for it I do not see a problem with having them donate. Furthermore I think it is more likely these days that straight people carry HIV as much as gay people do.