Banking on it

Blood donation needs transcend politics

Blood, while high in demand, is low in supply. 8 million Americans donate blood, which is only five percent of those who are eligible. As blood donations decrease by about one percent each year, the demand for blood increases by one percent a year.

In the 1980s, when the cause of AIDS appeared to be linked primarily to homosexual males, the Food and Drug Administration placed a ban on blood donated by gay males, or those who had sex with another man, even once, since 1977. The ban has since been extended to other high-risk groups including drug users, prostitutes and those who may have been exposed to "mad cow disease" or malaria.

The policy against gay males remains in effect and it should if the American Red Cross is sure that the group has a statistically higher chance of carrying HIV/AIDS.

However, the American Red Cross should reexamine its policies across the board to ensure that potential donors are screened based solely on statistical evidence and not on social biases.

A proposal to ease the ban was rejected by government scientists last week due to a lack of evidence assuring the protection of blood supply from HIV/AIDS. In a seven-to-six vote, The FDA's scientific advisors rejected a proposal to only ban men who had sex with another man in the last five years. Half of blood banks are pushing to ease the policy to one year. The American Red Cross is opposed to modifying the policy at all.

According to the Red Cross, in the United States, male to male sexual contact remains a leading risk for HIV infection. A study of 19 large United States blood centers, conducted by American Red Cross, revealed that 43 percent of all discarded donations due to the HIV infection came from men who reported a history of male to male sexual contact. The FDA requires blood banks to ask potential donors about risks for HIV and other diseases, refusing people at high risk. But, frighteningly enough, people lie.

Strict measures of prevention have been the foundation of preventing disease transmission to blood recipients. Questioning potential donors identifies medical risks or behaviors that might lead to HIV infection.

While evidence of infected blood supports the need to continue interviewing potential donors about their behavior, it seems the criteria for permanently banning specific groups of people from donating blood should be re-examined. Such exclusionary policies may serve to remove a number of risks for transmitting infectious diseases, but they also run the risk of disqualifying many potential donors of safe blood.

Last spring's human rights commission ruling in South Africa that gay men have a constitutional right to donate blood should be considered by the FDA and the American Red Cross. Gay men are not the only high-risk donors. No longer can an entire group of people be deemed ineligible to donate blood based solely on sexual orientation.

There are plenty of monogamous homosexual men with safe blood who are being denied access to donating, while heterosexuals with high risk factors are not being discriminated against.

It is time for the FDA and the American Red Cross to re-examine the criteria for donating blood across the board. There are two goals toward which to work when it comes to blood donation: Having safe blood and having enough in supply to pull through summer and holiday shortages.

The standards of eligible donors should not be lowered to accommodate the need for blood. But as the rate of donation decreases, it becomes imperative to tap into every possible resource for safe blood, even if that means re-examining and modifying policies.