To establish some context for those of you who aren't familiar with these specific blood donation regulations, here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men_blood_donor_controversy
In other words, regardless of the actual risks involved, all men who have sex with other men are institutionally descriminated against all over the world, with varying degrees of strictness, depending on the country. Here's some visual data to get some perspective:
Even in the case of 'only' temporary deferrals, they are typically deferred for at least one year.
Now let's get one thing straight. I don't have a problem with the science that says MSM partners have a higher chance contracting HIV and/or other viruses than other groups of people. I don't contest the veracity of the scientific data at all. The problem lies in the generalized prohibition or deferral of MSM donors without any distinction concerning their actual risk factors, which constitutes unjustified descrimination, and comes pretty close to espousing homophobic beliefs, due to stereotypes about gay men being inherently more promiscuous.
Take this excerpt from a meta-analysis regarding the FDA's stance on this issue for example:
https://medicalreview.columbia.edu/article/ban-the-ban/
I mean, how can that even be justified?
The reality is that there are gay/bisexual/pansexual men who are monogamous/have protected sex/aren't promiscuous, and do not have HIV/contaminated blood, and these people should be allowed to donate, ESPECIALLY seeing as blood donations are pretty much always in short supply. More importantly, there is no scientific basis by which any health organization or blood bank could determine that a gay, monogamous HIV negative donor is at higher risk of having contaminated blood than a promiscuous heterosexual donor, and yet these blanket regulations would have you to believe that there was.
My suggestion to resolve this issue is simple (though I acknowledge that the logistics are pretty complex): qualification or disqualification should primarily be based on a combination of risk factors per each donor's individual medical history, personal experiences, and rigorous testing models that can help screen donors and samples before determining that a donation or transplant is medically viable. This approach will work fairly universally and those who are actually at high risk of having contaminated blood will be screened out an overwhelming majority of the time. There simply is no reason to turn away a healthy, low-risk blood donor because of their sexual orientation and to do so despite all evidence or ethical considerations telling you not to is no different than straight up homophobic policies, in effect.
I'd love to hear what you all have to say on the matter.
The men who have sex with men blood donor controversy is the dispute over prohibitions on donations of blood or tissue for organ transplants from men who have sex with men(MSM), a classification of men who engage (or have engaged in the past) in sex with other men, regardless of whether they identify themselves as bisexual, gay, or otherwise. Restrictions on donors are sometimes called "deferrals", since blood donors who are found ineligible may be found eligible at a later date. However, many deferrals are indefinite meaning that donation may not be accepted at any point in the future, thus constituting a de facto ban. Restrictions vary from country to country and in some countries practice of protected sex or periods of abstinence are not considered. The restrictions affect these men and, in some cases, any female sex partners. They do not otherwise affect other women, including women who have sex with women. The United States Food & Drug Administration(FDA) asserts that the one year deferral window is "supported by the best available scientific evidence".[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men_blood_donor_controversy
In other words, regardless of the actual risks involved, all men who have sex with other men are institutionally descriminated against all over the world, with varying degrees of strictness, depending on the country. Here's some visual data to get some perspective:
Even in the case of 'only' temporary deferrals, they are typically deferred for at least one year.
Now let's get one thing straight. I don't have a problem with the science that says MSM partners have a higher chance contracting HIV and/or other viruses than other groups of people. I don't contest the veracity of the scientific data at all. The problem lies in the generalized prohibition or deferral of MSM donors without any distinction concerning their actual risk factors, which constitutes unjustified descrimination, and comes pretty close to espousing homophobic beliefs, due to stereotypes about gay men being inherently more promiscuous.
Take this excerpt from a meta-analysis regarding the FDA's stance on this issue for example:
The guidance document notes that the male donors who report that they are MSM have a lower prevalence of HIV infection than the general MSM population (.25% as opposed to 11-12%); the FDA concedes this suggests "considerable" self-selection by MSM individuals who choose to donate.23 Despite this evidence that the high rate of HIV among the general MSM population does not necessarily translate to a high rate of HIV among MSM donors, the FDA's twelve-month deferral does not allow for such self-selection, instead continuing the categorical association between gay sex and risky sex.
https://medicalreview.columbia.edu/article/ban-the-ban/
I mean, how can that even be justified?
The reality is that there are gay/bisexual/pansexual men who are monogamous/have protected sex/aren't promiscuous, and do not have HIV/contaminated blood, and these people should be allowed to donate, ESPECIALLY seeing as blood donations are pretty much always in short supply. More importantly, there is no scientific basis by which any health organization or blood bank could determine that a gay, monogamous HIV negative donor is at higher risk of having contaminated blood than a promiscuous heterosexual donor, and yet these blanket regulations would have you to believe that there was.
My suggestion to resolve this issue is simple (though I acknowledge that the logistics are pretty complex): qualification or disqualification should primarily be based on a combination of risk factors per each donor's individual medical history, personal experiences, and rigorous testing models that can help screen donors and samples before determining that a donation or transplant is medically viable. This approach will work fairly universally and those who are actually at high risk of having contaminated blood will be screened out an overwhelming majority of the time. There simply is no reason to turn away a healthy, low-risk blood donor because of their sexual orientation and to do so despite all evidence or ethical considerations telling you not to is no different than straight up homophobic policies, in effect.
I'd love to hear what you all have to say on the matter.