By John Mack Freeman
This week, an FDA Panel responsible for advising the organization on blood product issues discussed changing the ban on blood donations from men that have had sex with men since the late 1970’s. However, the groups discussion did not lead to a vote. Via ABC News:
“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.”
Most members of the 22-member panel agreed that more robust screening technology is needed to analyze the national blood supply and gauge safety changes over time. But panelists said it’s difficult to predict the impact of doing away with the current donor restrictions.
“It’s going to be a guess as to what’s going to happen,” said Dr. James Allen. “And it’s going to take time before we get the data that shows us whether that was a good decision or not.”
What Dr. Leitman may not realize is that health issues sometimes are civil rights issues, and that nothing exists in a vacuum. This squeamishness comes in the face of the fact that all blood donations are tested for HIV that infections older than 10 days can be detected. It comes in the face of the fact that a Health and Human Services group approved changing the ban from a lifetime to one-year by an almost unanimous vote. It comes in the face of the Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, America’s Blood Centers, and many LGBT-rights organizations calling for the ban to be dropped.
But there were no new developments, and the outmoded, outdated, fear-inspired ban stays in place. It’s was a shameful decision but perhaps not unsurprising after an unneeded ban of over thirty years.
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.”
Agreed. But I guess we mean different things.