The Blue Owl tipped me off to this article on Fox News this afternoon.
Fox News: Kerry Calls on FDA to Lift Longstanding Ban on Gay Men Donating Blood
Sen. John Kerry called on the government Thursday to abolish a “discriminatory” law that bars homosexual men in the U.S. from donating blood, saying “not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban.”
In a letter sent to the Food and Drug Administration, Kerry, D-Mass., along with a host of other Democrats, urged Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to change existing law that bars gay men from giving blood.
Kerry also called on the FDA to review its donor screening questionnaire to ensure a healthy blood supply.
“A law that was once considered medically justified is today simply outdated and needs to end, just as last year we ended the travel ban against those with HIV,” Kerry said in a statement on Thursday.
Before I became sexually active, I used to donate blood regularly. I always thought it was cool, interesting, and a nice thing to do. When I recognized the fact of my homosexuality, I was more than a little miffed by the ban on gay blood, but I have to acknowledge that I do believe the ban on gay blood was at one time justified. You see, men who have sex with other men are statistically more likely to carry certain blood-borne pathogens.
What makes this restriction appear nonsensical today is the simple fact that all donated blood is tested for those pathogens.
Statistics are only really useful for making actionable decisions about things you can’t test directly. For example, if you would like to know whether or not you should pack an umbrella for your trip tomorrow, you check the weather forecast and it tells you that given the current conditions there is an 80% chance of rain tomorrow for your destination. So, you pack an umbrella.
But you would not use the weather forecast to tell you if you should pick up an umbrella for running out and checking the mail right now. For that, you’d look out the front door and see if it’s raining.
Because every batch of donated blood is tested, it appears that the FDA’s use of statistics is foolish and unreasoned. After all, there is no reason to use statistics to predict whether or not a given batch has a given disease when you’re going to check the blood for that given disease anyway. That’s just foolish.
The challenge to this argument in favor of lifting the prohibition comes from the fact that the tests for said diseases are not 100% correct. They are correct within a certain margin of error. I’ve read that HIV tests, for example, are about 99% accurate. I don’t know if this means that they tend toward false positives or false negatives, but for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that it means there’s a 1% chance of a false negative. This means that 1% of the time a batch of HIV+ blood will get into the blood supply. Out of 1MM donations, that’s 10,000 batches of tainted blood being pumped into sick babies and injured firefighters and whatnot.
Given that we don’t have a way to reduce the risk of diseases slipping into the blood supply to absolutely nothing, we have to decide what level of risk is acceptable to us.
Whatever is decided, the risk of diseases slipping into the blood supply would be reduced by restricting high-risk groups from donating blood. Those groups include “men who have sex with men.” I’d hasten to point out that just because prohibition is applied to intravenous drug users and prostitutes as well as men who have sex with men does not mean that the risks associated with each group are equal. All it means is that the risks are above whatever threshold of comfort was used in establishing these prohibitions in the first place.
The real outrage here is why the government is dictating to us whose blood we are allowed to accept or not. That is a decision that could be easily and well managed by free markets.
What if you had the option to choose between screened blood and not-screened blood? Not-screened blood would be much cheaper but would carry higher risks.
What if you could choose blood that was screened and was guaranteed to not come from any risk groups? The more risk groups you choose to apply to blood you accept, the more expensive it would be, because the blood you accept would be harder to find.
What if you had a disease like HIV and you were willing to accept HIV+ blood, but only if it contained viruses with matching genetic qualities to your own? You’d likely get some kind of bargain on blood for which there is very little demand. Or what if you have malaria or some other disease that lives in the blood? You could accept similarly infected blood and get a deal if you’re in the hospital.
In all cases, you’d just have to specify your preference with your primary care physician or in documents given to the people who drag your unconscious body to the hospital when necessary.
The blood you choose to accept is a personal health decision and not one that should be dictated to Americans by the nanny-state. Once again we have the FDA interfering with the health and livelihood of Americans everywhere.
Update 9:04am ET 3/5/2010: Corrected an instance of hyphen abuse.