Premium
Blood donor deferral for men who have sex with men: still room to move
Author(s) -
Haire Bridget,
Whitford Kate,
Kaldor John M.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
transfusion
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.045
H-Index - 132
eISSN - 1537-2995
pISSN - 0041-1132
DOI - 10.1111/trf.14445
Subject(s) - deferral , medicine , donation , population , men who have sex with men , harm , family medicine , demography , human immunodeficiency virus (hiv) , psychology , environmental health , political science , social psychology , business , finance , syphilis , sociology , law
BACKGROUND Like a number of other countries, Australia mandates that a man who has had sex with men is deferred from donation until 12 months has elapsed since the sexual activity. This review examined whether this deferral period is justified by current evidence. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Databases (Medline, EMBASE, Scopus) were searched using terms “blood donation” and “gay” or “MSM” and “HIV risk” from the mid‐1980s to the present to investigate the history of donor deferral policy and its rationale in Australia. RESULTS Gay and bisexual men in Australia face a higher risk of human immunodeficiency virus and other blood‐borne viruses (BBVs) than other populations. All blood donations, however, are tested for BBVs, and with current testing technologies the window period during which infection may be present but not detected is now less than 1 week. While there is a moral imperative to maintain blood safety, there is also a moral imperative to ensure that differential treatment of population groups with regard to donation eligibility is scientifically justified. Potential social harms that may flow from a dissonance between deferral policy and its evidence base include loss of trust and increased nonadherence to policy. CONCLUSIONS A 12‐month deferral for gay and bisexual men exceeds what is required to maintain blood safety. This disparity potentially causes social harm without any additional benefit to public health. Reducing the deferral period to 3 months will not increase health risk to recipients and may have the social benefit of increasing inclusiveness.