Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Editorial: Homosexuals' blood could save lives
The FDA should lift its ban on gay blood donors.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Every summer, the Red Cross announces critical blood shortages as road trips and lawn mowers send Americans to hospitals in need of transfusions. Yet the federal government needlessly excludes some potential donors from helping fill the gap. Gay and bisexual men may not roll up their sleeves.
Last week, The Food and Drug Administration announced it will maintain its ban on using blood from gay men. The ban specifically applies to anyone who has had even a single male-to-male sexual encounter since 1977.
Adopted in 1983, it had a rational basis. Back then, HIV was new on the scene. Medical officials understood gay sex was rapidly spreading the virus, but the tests for it were still rudimentary and prone to error.
The times have changed. Tests have improved significantly. Their accuracy is now on par with other medical tests, and they are capable of detecting HIV-positive donors within just 10 to 21 days of infection. Moreover, gay and bisexual men today know they should use condoms for protection and many are in long-term relationships.
Blood from monogamous gay men who have been tested and found HIV-free is no more dangerous than anyone else's. Indeed, some heterosexuals, such as women with multiple partners, pose a greater risk.
The Red Cross and other blood collection organizations therefore urged the FDA to update the rules, but the administration demurred.
The perpetual gay ban persists while other at-risk groups are only out for a year. Gays are just too dangerous, it seems.
No evidence has surfaced that this is a matter of homophobia. Rather, it appears to be a question of how safe is safe enough.
Any blood transfusion carries risks; doctors must decide how much is acceptable.
When it comes to blood from gay men, the experts have satisfied the Red Cross and others. Gay blood donors can save lives safely.
The FDA needs to get with the times.
