Deferral of males who had sex with other males
| Autor: | S. Wendel, Clive R. Seed, Yanyan Zhu, L. S. McLaughlin, B. Danic, R. Kullaste, Aleksandra Rosiek, Huan Yang, Richard J. Benjamin, Claudio Velati, Josiane Pillonel, P. Turek, F. M. Moftah, Ju Whei Lee, C. K. Lin, Simon Panzer, R. N. Makroo, Giuliano Grazzini, Erhard Seifried, E. Zhiburt, V. T. Giner, Peter Flanagan, Ryszard Pogłód, A. D’Artote González, Dana V. Devine, Bengt Ekermo, Mindy Goldman, Joseph Murray, Anthony J. Keller, R. W. Olaussen, Simonetta Pupella, P. Rozman, Markus M. Mueller, G Folléa, Polonca Mali, S. Biagini, Anne F. Eder, F. Bigey, A. Bravo Lindoro, H. W. Reesink, E. Castro Izaguirre, Celso Bianco, S. Gulube, Magdalena Letowska, S. M. Barnes, Kenji Tadokoro |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2011 |
| Předmět: |
education.field_of_study
business.industry Donor selection Status quo media_common.quotation_subject Risk of infection Population Hematology General Medicine medicine.disease Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) Immunology Medicine Homosexuality Seroconversion business Deferral education Demography media_common |
| Zdroj: | Vox Sanguinis. 101:339-367 |
| ISSN: | 0042-9007 |
| Popis: | Donor history questionnaires for the determination of blood donor eligibility are a critical layer of blood safety. Early in the course of the AIDS epidemic in North America homosexual men with multiple partners were identified as one of the segments of the population with the highest risk of infection. Voluntary deferral of this group from blood donation led to a dramatic decrease in transfusion-transmitted HIV even before testing was introduced. In the early 1980s blood donors were deferred in England, the US and other nations, if they were ‘homosexual males with multiple partners’. After the implementation of HIV testing in 1985, the majority of the HIV-positive donors identified revealed ‘men having sex with men’ (MSM) behavior, leading the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to recommend indefinite deferral of all men who ‘have had sex with men, even once since 1977’; many other regulators and jurisdictions have enacted similar criteria. Three decades later, despite the recognition of other modes of transmission, MSM donors are still among the population segments with the highest prevalence and incidence of HIV in countries around the world. No other donor eligibility criterion has generated as much controversy or public discourse [1,2]. Proponents for change point out that in many countries other key components of blood safety such as donor testing and blood center process control have improved vastly, reducing the contribution of donor questioning to safety. Gay advocates in particular argue that donor selection policies based on MSM are discriminatory against gay and bisexual men in that they amount to a de facto permanent exclusion on the grounds of sexual preference, and are unfair, as other groups with similar risks of HIV infection are allowed to donate blood after shorter time-period deferrals designed to cover the seroconversion window. On the opposite side of the discussion, recipient advocacy groups and regulators are understandably adverse to any change that is not centered on improving safety. Recipient groups argue that they have suffered greatly due to transmission of HIV and HCV by transfusion, and they will be the bearers of any increase in risk that may result from policy changes. Because both MSM and recipients are vulnerable groups that have suffered in the past, the debate over possible changes in criteria has ethical, societal, and emotional dimensions not seen in discussions concerning other donor selection criteria. Of particular concern to blood operators is the prospect that young eligible donors may be dissuaded from donating blood to institutions that are perceived to act in a discriminatory and unfair fashion. This International Forum seeks to describe approaches to this issue and challenges to the status quo, in a snapshot in time. Since it is extremely difficult to obtaindatatoevaluatethepossibleimpactofpolicy changes made to address concerns expressed by advocacy groups, comparison of international practice is particularly valuable, since we may learn from approaches implemented in other jurisdictions. We received responses from 24 respondents representing countries on six continents. In most, but not all, the MSMpolicy isdetermined atthe national level. The following questions were asked of the respondents |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|