Ban Eased on Blood Donations from Men Who Have Had Sex with Men

Gay men will be able to donate blood one year after their last sexual contact, the FDA now says

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

(Reuters) - Gay men will be able to donate blood one year after their last sexual contact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said on Tuesday, under a proposal that will be introduced early next year to end a ban that has been in place since 1983.

Scientific evidence shows the move will not create risks for the nation's blood supply, the FDA said. The policy change is expected to boost the supply of donated blood by hundreds of thousands of pints per year.

Blood donations from gay men have been barred since the discovery that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was being transmitted through transfusions.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The FDA said the move aligns the policy for gay men with that for other men and women who are at increased risk for HIV infection. The agency, under pressure from medical groups and advocates, had convened meetings of advisory committees this fall to look at the issue.

"The FDA has carefully examined and considered the available scientific evidence relevant to its blood donor deferral policy for men who have sex with men, including the results of several recently completed scientific studies and recent epidemiologic data," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a statement.

The FDA said it will issue draft guidance on the policy, hopefully early in 2015. It would then review the comments and issue final guidance "as quickly as possible," Peter Marks, deputy director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said during a press briefing.

An FDA advisory committee met this month to discuss issues around changing the policy, such as the effectiveness of new blood supply tests for HIV infections. In November, an advisory committee to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommended a one-year deferral.

The FDA stopped short of eliminating the ban for gay men altogether. Marks said during the briefing that scientific evidence for a ban shorter than a year was not "compelling."

In September, the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law at the University of California, Los Angeles said a study showed eliminating the ban would bring in 615,300 pints of blood annually. Instituting a one-year deferral period would bring in 317,000 pints, the study found.

The United Kingdom allows gay men to donate blood if they have not had a sexual partner in 12 months. The American Medical Association this summer voted to oppose the ban.

 

(Reporting by Caroline Humer; Editing by Christian Plumb and David Gregorio)

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe