HHS

Blogswarm: Revise the Ban

by: Adam Bink

Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 09:30

Today, OpenLeft is participating in a blogswarm with AMERICABlog, AKAWilliam.com, Bilerico Project, Blabbeando, Change.org, DailyKos, David Badash, Firedoglake-The Seminal, Good As You, Joe Mirabella, Joe. My. God., LGBTPOV, Mike Signorile, and Rod 2.0. We are asking you to submit a public comment in support of revising the discriminatory and medically unwarranted FDA lifetime ban on blood donations from any man who has had sex with another man (MSM) since 1977.

Today, the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability is kicking off a two-day meeting to reconsider the FDA ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men (MSM). The current policy has been in place since 1985 when no HIV testing was available and little was known about HIV/AIDS. Since then, while many policies towards blood donations have changed, and HIV testing has significantly advanced to the point where a permanent ban no longer makes sense, the ban still remains in place. The ban is also discriminatory in that it unfairly targets gay and bisexual men because it does not distinguish between high-risk and low-risk MSM, banning potential MSM donors who are HIV-negative and consistently practice safe sex or are in long-term monogamous relationships, while others with a significantly higher risk of HIV infection are subject to less restrictive deferrals or none at all. The ban also contributes to a dangerously and chronically low blood supply in a country in which approximately just 5% of all eligible donors give.

The NYC and DC City Councils have recently passed resolutions by votes of 42-1 and 13-0, respectively, urging a revision of the ban. Sen. Kerry and 17 other Democratic Senators urged the same in a letter to the FDA. Today, we are asking that you join their voices in calling for a more sensible policy.

Dr. Jerry Holmberg is the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Committee, and is tasked with accepting formal public comments from both organizations and individuals. He has made his e-mail available for this purpose. Please take a minute to e-mail Dr. Holmberg via [email protected] and urge him and the committee to revise the ban on blood donations from MSM.

Similar to our "Release your anger!" action aimed at the FDIC on a financial penalty for banks taking excessive risks, there is an open public comment period in which the committee considers outside opinions- and an opportunity for supporters of a sensible policy to make a dent. In writing the note, you can use the facts we have listed below, a form letter we've put together at the bottom of this list post that summarizes the rationale for ending the ban, a personal note- or all of the above! My close friend was just diagnosed with a very serious type of leukemia. She has received half a dozen whole blood transfusions and several platelets transfusions. I am a healthy, HIV-negative, type O negative individual who has previously donated and who meets all additional critera for donating. I want to give, but this policy senselessly won't let me. I just e-mailed Dr. Holmberg with that message and other sound reasons.

Please take a minute to do the same, and drop Dr. Holmberg and the Committee an e-mail at [email protected]. Urge a revision of the policy that incorporates sound medical, scientific, and non-discriminatory guidelines.

The additional reasons you can cite are below.

  • Newer tests have shortened the window period in which HIV is undetectable to between 9 and 11 days. A permanent, lifetime ban is outdated and no longer makes sense.

  • The U.S. blood supply is frequently at critically low levels. Less than 5% of all eligible donors give, while donation recipients include mothers delivering babies, trauma victims, cancer patients, transplant patients and others. The respected Williams Institute estimates that lifting the ban would result in an estimated 130,150 additional donors who are likely to donate 219,000 additional pints of blood each year, while shortening deferral to one year would result in 53,269 additional men who are likely to donate 89,716 pints each year.

  • The ban is a form of discrimination by unfairly targeting men who have sex with men, or effectively the gay and bisexual community. A permanent, blanket ban is instituted on any male who has had sex with another male even once since 1977 and without regard for his partner's HIV status nor for frequency, safe sex practices, or duration since. Yet if one has sex with an opposite-sex partner who is knowingly HIV-positive, he or she can give again in a year. This is discrimination and it is wrong.

  • Other countries like Australia, Japan, Sweden and Russia have either revised or completely lifted the deferral period, while Italy, Spain and France screen donors based on risk rather than a blanket ban on a community.

  • The American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers, American Association of Blood Banks, American Medical Association, and a coalition of nearly fifty other organizations all support a revision of the ban.

You can use these reasons in combination with your own personal ones, or the form letter in the extended entry. Please submit a public comment via [email protected], and urge that the ban be revised to improve the nation's health, meet sound scientific practices, and eliminate discrimination. Thanks for helping improve the nation's health and eliminating another form of discrimination.

There's More... :: (0 Comments, 379 words in story)

How many might donate if they could

by: Adam Bink

Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:50

The Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law, which has done a lot of excellent population studies in the past, has a new report out estimating the effects of lifting the ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men. It's a ban that the American Red Cross and American Association of Blood Banks calls "medically and scientifically unwarranted" and is also blatantly, discriminatory, given that individuals who have HIV-positive opposite-sex partners are asked to defer donations for one year, but a gay man has sex just once since 1977 with a positive OR negative partner, and he is slapped with a lifetime ban. The current ban excludes nearly 7 million potentially eligible men from becoming donors. It makes no sense.

Next week on June 10-11, the HHS Advisory Council on Blood Safety and Availability will meet to reconsider the FDA ban.

The Williams Institute used the 2000-2008 General Social Survey and 2008 American Community Survey to estimate the number of men who have sex with men in their lifetime; in the past five years; and in the past twelve months. Based on the direction a number of other countries have gone, the FDA rule could be revised to a deferral based on risk rather than orientation, or a one-year deferral, which other countries, such as Sweden, Australia and Japan , have adopted. My hope is that the one-year deferral also adopts risk as a factor. The Williams Institute also uses American Red Cross statistics on the number of donors among the eligible population and the number of donations per eligible donor. Their results:

If the current MSM ban were completely lifted, we estimate that an additional 130,150 men would likely donate 219,200 additional pints of blood each year.

If MSM who have not had sexual contact with another man in the past twelve months were permitted to donate, we estimate that 53,269 additional men are likely to donate 89,716 pints each year. If MSM who have not had sexual contact with another man in the past five years were permitted to donate, we estimate that 42,286 additional men would make 71,218 blood donations.

You can read the full report here. There is also an FDA ban on organ donation by MSMs who have had sex in the past five years. The Williams Institutes estimates a 2.9% increase in donations, or about 900 more organ donations per year.

A very good friend of mine has just started chemotherapy this week for a very aggressive leukemia, a kind of blood cancer. She's received four whole blood transfusions and a platelet transfusion so far. This healthy, HIV negative, type O negative donor would be first in line to donate to her to help her stay alive, and there should be no reason I can't. Revising the ban is the medically sound thing to do to help people like my friend, eliminate a blatantly discriminatory practice, and improve the nation's health.

Discuss :: (2 Comments)
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox