Franken urges end to gay blood ban

By Andy Birkey
Friday, March 05, 2010 at 2:02 pm

473px-Al_Franken_Official_Senate_PortraitSen. Al Franken is among 16 senators calling on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to end the ban on blood donations by gay men. In a letter to FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg on Thursday, the senators called the policy “medically and scientifically unsound” and called out the double standard placed on gay men who want to be donors.

“Prospective donors who have engaged in heterosexual sexual activity with a person known to have HIV are deferred for one year,” the letter said. “At the same time, male donors who engaged in protected homosexual sexual activity with a monogamous partner 26 years ago are deferred for life.”

The senators also urged the commissioner to focus on unprotected sex as a determination for prospective blood donors. “Unprotected sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is recognized as a significantly higher risk behavior for HIV transmission than protected sexual activity.”

The current ban on gay blood donors was instituted in 1983, when not much was known about HIV infection. Currently the blood supply undergoes rigorous testing for HIV and other blood borne pathogens.

Here’s the full letter:

March 4, 2010

The Honorable Margaret Hamburg Commissioner U.S. Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Room 2217 Silver Spring, MD 20993

Dear Commissioner Hamburg:

We write today to express our concerns regarding outdated, medically and scientifically unsound deferral criteria for prospective blood donors. With hospitals and emergency rooms across the country in constant and urgent need of blood products, we believe certain blood donor deferral policies should be reviewed and appropriately modified and modernized while ensuring the blood supply meets the highest possible standards that we all expect in America.

The American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, and AABB reported before an FDA-sponsored workshop on March 9, 2006 that the ban on men who have had sex with other men (MSM), even once, since 1977 from ever donating blood “is medically and scientifically unwarranted.” Then in 2008, the Council on Science and Public Health at the American Medical Association also advocated modifying the lifetime deferral requirement for MSM. We all recognize the practical and well-intentioned origins of this ban, first established in 1983 at the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis when modern screening procedures and advanced testing methods for HIV were yet to be developed. Standards and selectivity is of course necessary to protect the blood supply.

We live in a very different country than we did in 1983. Today, the high-risk behaviors associated with HIV contraction are more fully understood and dramatic technological improvements have been made in HIV detection. Collecting facilities now screen all donors for history of certain high-risk behaviors, and FDA regulations determine that all donated blood be analyzed by two highly accurate screening tests; one for antibodies to HIV-1/2 and HIV-1 Group O variants, and the other for the actual sequences of the virus using molecular technologies. As a result, the blood banking community believes that the lifetime deferral is no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the blood banks.

It is our understanding that there is a window period of up to three weeks following a person’s initial exposure to HIV during which infection may be missed by the blood tests. It is this window period that rightfully serves as the scientific basis for a deferral period for prospective donors deemed to be of high-risk for HIV. Similar approaches and deferral periods are used to prevent window-period transmission of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C by blood transfusion. However, there is a clear and unscientific double standard embedded in the current deferral rules for potential exposure to HIV.

Reflecting the dangers associated with the window period, prospective donors who have engaged in heterosexual sexual activity with a person known to have HIV are deferred for one year. At the same time, male donors who engaged in protected homosexual sexual activity with a monogamous partner 26 years ago are deferred for life. The FDA-imposed lifetime ban for men who have sex with men does not fall in line with the one-year deferral required for high-risk heterosexual behavior, nor does it correspond in any way to the window period. The ban also does not distinguish between safe and unprotected sexual activity. As a result, healthy blood donors are turned away every day due to an antiquated policy and our blood supply is not necessarily any safer for it.

With the safety of the blood supply as our top concern, our examination of the deferral process has brought to our attention a second issue that we believe requires your consideration. It is our understanding that there are rapidly rising rates of new HIV infections among certain segments of the heterosexual population. While the screening and testing procedures are rigorous for certain high-risk behaviors, there is no expressed concern with unprotected heterosexual sex during the window period in which the administered HIV tests are unreliable. Unprotected sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is recognized as a significantly higher risk behavior for HIV transmission than protected sexual activity. We urge you to take this important distinction into consideration when reexamining possible changes to deferral policies.

The safety, availability, and integrity of our nation’s blood supply are vital. For these reasons, we agree with the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, AABB, and others that the time has come for the FDA to modify the lifetime deferral for MSM to be consistent with sensible health and safety policy and with FDA deferral guidelines for high-risk heterosexual behavior. We request that you initiate a review of the lifetime deferral requirement for men who have sex with men wishing to donate blood and that you reexamine the deferral criteria for all blood donors to ensure all high-risk behaviors are appropriately addressed.

Thank you for your leadership in promoting public health and safety. We look forward to working with you on this issue.

Sincerely,

John Kerry, U.S. Senator
Kirstin Gillibrand, U.S. Senator
Dick Durbin, U.S. Senator
Daniel Akaka, U.S. Senator
Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Senator
Sherrod Brown, U.S. Senator
Frank Lautenberg, U.S. Senator
Bob Casey, U.S. Senator
Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator
Russ Feingold, U.S. Senator
Mark Udall, U.S. Senator
Al Franken, U.S. Senator
Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator
Carl Levin, U.S. Senator
Tom Harkin, U.S. Senator
Mark Begich, U.S. Senator
Rolland Burris, U.S. Senator
Michael Bennet, U.S. Senator

Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter


Comments

12 Comments

T-Paw Is A Jerk
Comment posted March 5, 2010 @ 3:23 pm

Mr. Franken is my hero. Thank you Al. You are so smart, why cant the Republi-thugs just stop picking on people who need help?


ADF Alliance Alert » Kerry asks FDA to lift ban on “gay” men donating blood
Pingback posted March 5, 2010 @ 3:47 pm

[...] Minnesota Independent: Franken urges end to gay blood ban [...]


Steve Clemens
Comment posted March 5, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

As a regular blood donor (I donate platelets every two weeks and have donated 20 gallons with my next appointment), I strongly welcome this change. Thank you Al for your willingness to challenge this out-dated policy.


Franken Urges End to Gay Blood Ban « NCLR Blog: Out for Justice
Pingback posted March 5, 2010 @ 6:42 pm

[...] read more [...]


Eddi
Comment posted March 5, 2010 @ 6:49 pm

I’m glad that inconsisencies are pointed out between HIV and other similar viruses (e.g. hepatitis C) and between homosexual behaviors and heterosexual ones. This letter prsents a good argument. I was previously in favor of maintaining the mentioned ban. Now I’m favor of listing it but with restrictions for HIV that are the same as hepatitis C.


Barry Burgess
Comment posted March 6, 2010 @ 2:22 pm

This article tells only one side of the story. HIV transmission from blood donors still occurs and HIV is not the only danger. A more balanced account can be found at http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/05/senators-ask-fda-to-lift-gay-blood-donor-ban/


mike smith
Comment posted March 7, 2010 @ 1:30 am

Gays are very selfish, narcissistic people – they don’t care about anyone else.
You can’t believe a word the government & its politicians say – If they say something is OK that usually means its NOT ok.
Politicians and the blood banks (redcross) are only concerned with business, making money – profit. They, like the Gays, do not care about public health (the gays do not even care about their own health – just look at their disgusting lifestyle!!!).
One way around this blood ban is to allow the Gays to donate blood, but after the blood is taken, it can be thrown into a garbage skip or sold to a third-world country where everyone gets HIV from untested blood anyway, so it will not make a difference for them.
MS.


Asbjorn Osland
Comment posted March 7, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

The question remains: assume a deferral period were implemented; is it reasonable to assume MSM would avoid sex just to give blood? I suppose there are some MSM that were previously active and have become celibate for varied reasons. For this group, perhaps the five-year deferral period could work. The FDA is portrayed as homophobic but that certainly isn’t the case since there has reportedly never been a case of HIV transmitted from a lesbian to a lesbian; they are of course free to donate. Also, if the FDA policy were in fact discriminatory there would be court cases and there are not, from what I can ascertain. Has any reputable blood industry expert written in support of Franken’s view in a refereed journal? I haven’t seen one. The issue is now political so it will be interesting to see how it plays out. It’s a great controversy. Donating blood has been mistakenly construed as a right rather than a privilege here by our senators. Lots of groups are excluded from donating blood because of varied risk factors.


Health Law Pulse » Catching Up to Reality On Blood Donations By Gay Men
Pingback posted March 9, 2010 @ 11:53 am

[...] I was buoyed to see that just a few days ago, a group of sixteen U.S. Senators sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, urging the agency to reconsider its twenty-seven-year-old [...]


TheColu.mn » Blog Archive » Thanks, Al: FDA “Revisiting” Gay Blood Ban
Pingback posted March 24, 2010 @ 4:59 pm

[...] weeks ago, Franken and his colleagues sent the FDA a letter arguing that the ban is outdated and scientifically unsound, in light of extremely sensitive HIV [...]


Culhane: It's time to end the gay blood ban | News Story on 365gay.com
Pingback posted April 15, 2010 @ 11:01 am

[...] at risk. But today it makes no sense at all, and a group of U.S. Senators recently asked the FDA to revise the rule to reflect a very changed reality. The letter notes that having heterosexual sex with someone [...]


pharmacie en ligne
Comment posted October 12, 2011 @ 9:14 am

Excellent info once again! Thank you!


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.