User login
Photo by Juan D. Alfonso
The lifetime ban on blood donation from men who have sex with men (MSM) has been lifted in England, Wales, and Scotland.
Beginning in November, MSM in these countries can donate blood if they have not engaged in sexual activity within the past 12 months. A study published September 8 on bmj.com helped inform this decision.
Several other countries previously lifted the lifetime ban instituted in the 1980s and introduced deferment periods instead. For example, MSM in South Africa must defer blood donation 6 months after sexual activity. And MSM in Australia, Sweden, and Japan must wait 12 months.
The changes to policy in these countries—along with advances in blood screening techniques and knowledge of HIV—prompted calls for Great Britain to revise its blood donor policy.
So Kaye Wellings, of London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and her colleagues decided to assess the possible effects of revising the policy, as well as past compliance with the lifetime ban. The results of their study were used to inform the policy review conducted by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues, and Organs.
Between April 2009 and June 2010, Wellings’s team surveyed 1028 men in Britain who reported having any sexual contact with other men. Of those surveyed, 10.6% reported donating blood since having penetrative sex with a man, and 2.5% had done so in the past 12 months.
The men cited various reasons for not complying with the ban. They believed themselves to be at low risk of having HIV, had confidentiality concerns, did not understand the ban, or thought the ban unfair.
To gain more insight, Wellings and her colleagues conducted interviews with 30 MSMs—19 who had complied with the lifetime ban on blood donation and 11 who had not.
Many of these men considered the lifetime ban to be unfair, discriminatory, and lacking a clear rationale. However, they generally viewed a 1-year deferral rule as feasible and acceptable.
This prompted Wellings and her colleagues to conclude that MSM might be more likely to comply with a 1-year deferral rule than a lifetime ban. And compliance might improve further with better communication, improved confidentiality measures, and clear explanations of the rationale behind the rule. 
Photo by Juan D. Alfonso
The lifetime ban on blood donation from men who have sex with men (MSM) has been lifted in England, Wales, and Scotland.
Beginning in November, MSM in these countries can donate blood if they have not engaged in sexual activity within the past 12 months. A study published September 8 on bmj.com helped inform this decision.
Several other countries previously lifted the lifetime ban instituted in the 1980s and introduced deferment periods instead. For example, MSM in South Africa must defer blood donation 6 months after sexual activity. And MSM in Australia, Sweden, and Japan must wait 12 months.
The changes to policy in these countries—along with advances in blood screening techniques and knowledge of HIV—prompted calls for Great Britain to revise its blood donor policy.
So Kaye Wellings, of London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and her colleagues decided to assess the possible effects of revising the policy, as well as past compliance with the lifetime ban. The results of their study were used to inform the policy review conducted by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues, and Organs.
Between April 2009 and June 2010, Wellings’s team surveyed 1028 men in Britain who reported having any sexual contact with other men. Of those surveyed, 10.6% reported donating blood since having penetrative sex with a man, and 2.5% had done so in the past 12 months.
The men cited various reasons for not complying with the ban. They believed themselves to be at low risk of having HIV, had confidentiality concerns, did not understand the ban, or thought the ban unfair.
To gain more insight, Wellings and her colleagues conducted interviews with 30 MSMs—19 who had complied with the lifetime ban on blood donation and 11 who had not.
Many of these men considered the lifetime ban to be unfair, discriminatory, and lacking a clear rationale. However, they generally viewed a 1-year deferral rule as feasible and acceptable.
This prompted Wellings and her colleagues to conclude that MSM might be more likely to comply with a 1-year deferral rule than a lifetime ban. And compliance might improve further with better communication, improved confidentiality measures, and clear explanations of the rationale behind the rule.
Photo by Juan D. Alfonso
The lifetime ban on blood donation from men who have sex with men (MSM) has been lifted in England, Wales, and Scotland.
Beginning in November, MSM in these countries can donate blood if they have not engaged in sexual activity within the past 12 months. A study published September 8 on bmj.com helped inform this decision.
Several other countries previously lifted the lifetime ban instituted in the 1980s and introduced deferment periods instead. For example, MSM in South Africa must defer blood donation 6 months after sexual activity. And MSM in Australia, Sweden, and Japan must wait 12 months.
The changes to policy in these countries—along with advances in blood screening techniques and knowledge of HIV—prompted calls for Great Britain to revise its blood donor policy.
So Kaye Wellings, of London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and her colleagues decided to assess the possible effects of revising the policy, as well as past compliance with the lifetime ban. The results of their study were used to inform the policy review conducted by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues, and Organs.
Between April 2009 and June 2010, Wellings’s team surveyed 1028 men in Britain who reported having any sexual contact with other men. Of those surveyed, 10.6% reported donating blood since having penetrative sex with a man, and 2.5% had done so in the past 12 months.
The men cited various reasons for not complying with the ban. They believed themselves to be at low risk of having HIV, had confidentiality concerns, did not understand the ban, or thought the ban unfair.
To gain more insight, Wellings and her colleagues conducted interviews with 30 MSMs—19 who had complied with the lifetime ban on blood donation and 11 who had not.
Many of these men considered the lifetime ban to be unfair, discriminatory, and lacking a clear rationale. However, they generally viewed a 1-year deferral rule as feasible and acceptable.
This prompted Wellings and her colleagues to conclude that MSM might be more likely to comply with a 1-year deferral rule than a lifetime ban. And compliance might improve further with better communication, improved confidentiality measures, and clear explanations of the rationale behind the rule.