The Leonard Carmichael Society (LCS) teamed up with the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Center and the Dean of Students Office last night to put on an awareness panel centered on the current screening policy for blood in American blood banks.
The panel featured such organizations as the Red Cross and AIDS Action Committee.
Of discussion was the conflict between the University's anti-discrimination policy and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations that certain persons are precluded from ever donating blood due to their assessed high risk of possessing the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).
The persons deferred from donating blood by the FDA rules include men who have slept with other men after 1977, those who have used a needle to take drugs without a prescription, those who have been diagnosed with hemophilia, or those who have taken drugs or money in exchange for sex. The panel focused on the issue of gays donating blood.
Last semester, senior Matthew Pohl and the co-presidents of LCS came to an agreement in December allowing Red Cross blood drives to continue on campus, under provisions that there are increased local and national education efforts about the potentially discriminatory policy.
Charlene Galarneau, a Tufts lecturer in community health, argued that putting all gay men together was too exclusive.
"A person with exposure to hepatitis or a recipient of a tattoo is only deferred from donating blood for one year," Galarneau said. "Exposure to malaria means deferment of three years. But what they are saying is that these [gay] men are deferred for life."
"Donor selection removes 97 percent of risk of contracting HIV," New England's Chief Medical Officer for Red Cross Richard Benjamin said. "It's not a gay issue; it's much bigger than that." Selection, he said, is based on at-risk behavior, not sexual orientation.
"One of the main misconceptions is that heterosexual sex is safe," Galarneau said.
Benjamin requested that panel attendees consider both sides of a blood donation. "I don't believe the rights of donors supersede the rights of recipients," he said.
Sophie Godley, the Director of Prevention on the AIDS Action Committee, was concerned about the FDA's apparent placement of the issue of gays and blood onto the backburner.
The Blood Products Advisory Council is in charge of all rules relating to this issue, but when it came down to a vote, the tally came up seven-to-six in favor of keeping the status quo over reducing deferment to five years.
"[I'm] concerned about the unintended consequences [of changing the policy]," said Dr. Richard Olans, Director of Infectious Diseases and Director of Microbiology at Hallmark Health. "It may be somewhat discriminatory in who can donate, but this system is not discriminatory in who receives blood."
Olans also worried that if certain screenings were dropped, then the issue would become "so much chaff to be used as a political issue."
The panelists agreed on one key point: They stated that the blood supply is much lower than it should be if America is to keep up citizen health.
"If half the [gay] men who are turned away could give blood, then we would not have a blood shortage," Benjamin said.
According to the panelists, the overall blood supply is only two days ahead of what any given hospital needs for transfusions and operations. Contrary to popular opinion, Benjamin asserted, blood is only good for 42 days. Six weeks after collection, any unused blood is useless to doctors.
Some of the panelists' complaints with the Red Cross were its passive attitude Rather than bringing these issues to the fore, they hide behind FDA regulations and do nothing to challenge them. "Imagine if the Red Cross led the way," Godley said.
