FDA Upholds Status Quo Banning Blood Donations From Gay Men

Feature image via Shutterstock

Despite urging from the American Medical Association, the Department of State Health Services, the American Red Cross, and numerous other organizations, the Federal Drug Administration’s Blood Advisory Panel chose not to make any decision on a recommendation to change policies prohibiting blood donation from any man who has ever had sexual contact with another man.

The panel met last week to discuss the issue after DSHS’s blood experts voted 16-2 that a restriction donating until one year after having same-sex contact was better policy than the lifetime ban. But the FDA’s panel experts weren’t convinced.

“If I look at the science I would be very wary of a one-year deferral,” said Dr. Susan Leitman. “It sounds to me like we’re talking about policy and civil rights rather than our primary duty, which is transfusion safety.”

Other groups prohibited from donating blood include sex workers and intravenous drug users. Trans women who have had sex with cis men face the same restrictions as gay men.

The panel did not take a vote for or against recommendation, which makes it likely the FDA will not take any action — though they can do so with or without the recommendation. The national conversation about the lifetime ban began in earnest in 2006, when the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, and America’s Blood Centers said the ban was “medically and scientifically unwarranted,” according to the Associated Press.

It’s unclear what science the FDA panel is looking at that makes its conclusions so vastly different from basically every other group with an interest in the matter. Mark Joseph Stern at Slate has one theory:

“Their stated opposition to gay blood donation is a fear that HIV-positive men will donate. But every blood donation is tested for HIV, and the virus can now be detected within weeks of infection. If gay men were celibate for a year before their donation, how could they possibly carry an increased risk for HIV? If they were already HIV-negative prior to a year of celibacy, how could they even have HIV at all?

Parse this chain of reasoning, and the Blood Products Advisory Panel’s true fear is obvious: It is afraid gay men will lie.”

Stern also notes that people who have sex with an HIV-positive opposite sex partner only face a one-year deferral. To make this as clear as possible: Straight people who have sex with an opposite sex partner who definitely has HIV only have to wait a year to give blood. Gay and bi men who have sex with a man at any point in their lives, even if their partner definitely didn’t have HIV, can never donate. It is true that men who have sex with men account for more than 60 percent of new infections each year, but the ability to prevent transmission and the ability to screen blood for HIV are both monumentally improved since the FDA implemented the policy in 1983.

Either a year is a long enough period to determine whether someone who has potentially been exposed to HIV contracted the disease or it isn’t. It seems like the FDA is the one making this an issue about discrimination and politics, not the blood organizations and medical associations.

Adrian is a writer, a Texan and a divinity student at Vanderbilt University. They write about bisexuality, gender, religion, politics, music and a whole lot of feelings at Autostraddle and wherever fine words are sold. They have a dog named after Alison Bechdel. Follow Adrian on Twitter @adrianwhitetx.

Adrian has written 143 articles for us.

7 Comments

  1. Well, that’s terrible.

    I’m also permanently disqualified from donating, but if I or some one I loved or anyone at all needed a blood transfusion, I would hope that there’s some available. It seems like limiting the donor pool, especially when the reasoning for such sounds more politically motivated, is kinda counterproductive to that.

  2. I’ve always felt that the blood ban was discriminatory and unnecessary. I didn’t realize that straight people who’ve DEFINITELY come into contact with HIV can donate after only a year, though. That’s bullshit. I hate this country. I hate this world. As a young feminist queer woman in an interracial relationship, it’s very, very hard not to be totally jaded. I hope my children grow up in a world where they can’t believe things like this happened.

  3. There’s just no logic behind this outdated policy. Ignore science, discriminate unfairly, and potentially lose lives of people who desperately need blood transfusions. Decisions based on non-science and non-logic make me angry.

  4. For a long time I supported the donation ban because, statistically speaking, cis men and trans women who have sex with cis men are among the groups most likely to be HIV+ in the U.S. Like Dr. Leitman there, I thought the push to overturn the ban was based more on what was “nice” than what was medically sound.

    But now I’ve learned two things:

    First, that the virus can be detected in the bloodstream within weeks of infection. Previously, that window of time was about six months.

    And,

    that the FDA are apparently concerned that gay men will lie about the time period of their last sexual encounter but not er, that they’ve ever had sex with a man before? Why would they lie in the first circumstance but not the second? That just doesn’t make sense to me.

    I think a scientifically supported compromise would be to require cis men and trans women who’ve ever had sex with a cis man *other than a committed, monogamous partner* to have been celibate for a month prior to donating. And then if people want to lie about it, they’re going to lie, but a new policy isn’t going to change that fundamental aspect of human behavior.

Contribute to the conversation...

You must be logged in to post a comment.