Rep. Mike Quigley: Healthy Gay Men Should Not Be Banned from Donating Blood

Our current policies turn away healthy, willing donors, even as we face serious blood shortages

July 26, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (11)

Mike Quigley is a Democratic member of congress from Illinois and sits on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

On June 11, an advisory committee to the Department of Health and Human Services, composed of health experts from around the country, voted 9-6 to maintain a policy that bans gay and bisexual men from ever donating blood.

This decision, by the department's Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability, was hugely disappointing to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, the blood banking community, the American Medical Association, and dozens of policymakers who have argued for years that this outdated policy needs to be changed. It was also dramatically eye-opening for the greater American public, because the committee acknowledged that this outdated policy allows high-risk individuals to donate while prohibiting low-risk donors who could contribute life-saving blood, which is in short supply. That is, the Food and Drug Administration's current policy—a policy once intended to protect Americans—could, in fact, leave our blood supply less safe and less available, rather than more. Still, there is reason for hope.

While the committee voted to uphold the present ban, for now, it also voted unanimously that the current deferral is "suboptimal" and that alternative policies need to be developed. This may not seem like much at face value, but this meeting marked a significant change: No longer are advocates and citizens the only ones calling for change, but an official panel of medical experts has now acknowledged the shortcomings of the current policy and has recommended researching alternatives.

The current policy has been in place since the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s, when health officials banned for life any man who has had sex with a man—even once—since 1977 from donating blood. In the 25 years since, we have seen vast advances in blood screening technology, policy changes in other nations, and staunch opposition from the blood banks, which have called the current ban "medically and scientifically unwarranted."

Nevertheless, healthy gay and bisexual men continue to be banned for life, while the FDA allows a man who has had sex with an HIV-positive woman to give blood after waiting only one year. This double standard is indefensible and nonsensical. Our current policies turn away healthy, willing donors, even as we face serious blood shortages. According to a recent UCLA study, lifting the ban could provide an additional 219,000 pints of much-needed blood and 900 additional organ donations each year.

The June 11 meeting marked the first time that the advisory committee publicly acknowledged this double standard. The committee agreed unanimously that current donor policies "permit some potentially high risk donations while preventing some potentially low risk donations." This means people who have transmissible diseases are free to give blood despite the current restrictions, while many who are safe to donate are being turned away. Clearly, the current policy is not working.

Rather than perpetuating a flawed practice based on outdated science, we need a policy that prevents people who engage in high-risk behavior from donating while permitting low-risk donors to do so. The committee recommended researching several viable alternatives that would allow low-risk gay and bisexual men to donate. Now, we need follow-through.

Despite hints of progress, we still face challenges, the most significant of which is a lack of political will. The FDA has put revising this policy on the back burner, and while some have raised concerns, the FDA has for the most part continued to ignore this issue. We must demonstrate to the FDA that changing this outdated, discriminatory policy is a priority.

If you or someone you know is perfectly healthy but banned from giving blood because of sexual orientation, I encourage you to write to your member of Congress, write to the FDA, write to the Department of Health and Human Services. Let policymakers know you want to see a policy that encourages a larger, healthier, life-saving blood supply and that reflects current science rather than a stigma of the past.

Read why blood donor policies must ensure safety above all, by Mark Skinner, a Washington-based attorney and president of the World Federation of Hemophilia. 

Tags:
Mike Quigley,
LGBT rights,
Congress,
FDA,
CDC

Reader Comments Read all comments (11)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

conflates homosexuality and pedophilia. Wow.

Betty, what do you think about the fact that the FDA considers high-risk heterosexual behavior, such as having sex with numerous prostitutes 13 months or more ago, to be lower risk than experimenting ONCE with homosexuality 30 years ago? To you, which of those two better fits the billing of being "gross, twisted and very unclean?"

anonymous 5:04PM September 27, 2010

How sad to be willing to watch someone die. No one is advocating denying you blood if you should need it, gay or not. This is partly about people with little or no risk of Aids exposure in their lives wanting to keep the blood supply as safe as possible. Get over your hate... I'm a "breeder" and though I may or may not agree with your lifestyle I would not want to watch you bleed out just to spite you.

Bob of SD 12:42PM July 28, 2010

I'm well aware that people lie...but again, technically it's illegal (I'd bet that Kansas is one of the 34 states that could charge you with a felony, although in practice, the only case it could be easily enforced is if a prominent disqualified figure like Magic Johnson or Barney Frank attempted to donate blood, or if someone had a grudge against you and decided to rat you out.)

anonymous 4:11PM July 27, 2010

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

God Bless America and the Boy Scouts

The Fund does the right thing by pushing the Boy Scouts to lift its ban on gay members.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Show the Failure of Obama's Big Government

Giving an inefficient organization like the IRS more responsibility makes it more likely to screw up, not better able to solve this nation’s problems.

Coburn Wants Oklahoma Tornado Aid Offset With Budget Cuts

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn wants spending cuts before aid is sent to tornado victims in his own state.

advertisement