FDA Discrimination Must End

As Harvard Blood Drive launched its second campaign of the year to encourage blood donations for the American Red Cross, its efforts were matched with an even more powerful, and justified, outcry against prejudice. The Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters’ Alliance (BGLTSA) countered with a provocative postering operation that exposed the anti-gay discrimination in the government’s blood donation rules. Harvard Blood Drive has recently decided to stand with the BGLTSA and lobby against the restrictions. We applaud the BGLTSA for its efforts and join in its goal of convincing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to change its antiquated regulations.

Under the current restrictions, no male is able to donate blood if he has engaged in sexual activity with any other male since 1977. At the same time, however, any heterosexual man or woman, even one who has engaged in sex with an HIV-positive partner, is able to donate only one year after the encounter. The discrimination is targeted specifically at homosexual men—homosexual women do not have the same restrictions.

This is not simply a case of an antiquated law that has been overlooked and unenforced. As recently as 2000, the FDA—with the support of the Red Cross—renewed this rule, despite the urgings of nearly half of America’s blood banks, which lobbied for a change that would set an equal standard for gay men as for any other donors.

It is easy to understand the reasoning behind the FDA’s implementation of the rules in the early 1980s when society’s understanding of HIV and AIDS was much more limited. When authorities lack the information necessary to have full control over a public health emergency, it is important that officials err on the side of caution. But 20 years later, when knowledge has advanced so rapidly, these rules stem more from reactionary prejudices than scientific reasoning.

The FDA estimates that ending this discriminatory practice would allow 112,000 new donors to give blood. In a time when the Red Cross is underscoring its urgent need for donation, it seems not only bigoted, but also dangerous to the public welfare, to turn away so many thousands of donors. The FDA should create more detailed questionnaires about potential donors’ sexual history, instead of fostering the implicit assumption that all gay men are promiscuous. Personal history is the pertinent information; blind predetermination based on orientation is not. The FDA must update both its regulation and its mindset on this issue of critical importance.