PoPulationand Public HealtH etHics

group, MsM. When one weighs these burdens in light of the minimal increase
in risk, the increase in blood donations and the elimination of discrimination
for this group in donating blood, it becomes obvious that a change in
policy is necessary. 14
In light of the above discussions, we suggest that the blood deferral policy
for MsM be revisited, as CBs 13 is currently doing, and that the lifetime deferral
for MsM be lifted. 14 The evidence of a minimal increase in risk of a
contaminated blood supply and an increase in blood donors supports this
recommendation. 2,14 While other countries have lifted the ban to a deferral
of one year, we recommend that the decision about the length of deferral
not be made until stakeholders and interest groups, along with experts, have
opportunity for engagement and discussion. Given the high costs of nat
testing, consideration of scarce resources must inform the policy change.
However, the benefit of increasing the blood supply, particularly when blood
donation levels are low, must also be considered. Health Canada changed
its deferral period for organ donation for MsM from a lifetime ban to five
years because of the low rate of organ donations, 3 and this may be an important
precedent for the blood deferral policy for MsM. The decision to
change this policy must be made with utmost care to preserve public trust
in a safe blood supply, and to ensure that the discrimination and stigmatization
of MsM is minimized and, if at all possible in this case, eliminated.
Although we suggest that the blood deferral policy be revisited, we also suggest
that a comprehensive rigorous evaluation plan be implemented. The
CBs promotional campaign states, “Blood, it’s in you to give.” A change in
blood deferral policy for MsM would ensure that this campaign applies to
a greater proportion of the population.
reFerences
1 Upshur, R., Faith, K., Gibson, J. L., Thompson, A. K., Tracy, C. S., Wilson, K. & Singer,
P. (2005). Stand on guard for thee: ethical considerations in preparedness planning
for pandemic influenza. University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics. Retrieved
from: www.jointcentreforbioethics.ca/people/. . ./upshur_stand_guard.pdf.
2 Leiss, W., Tyshenkoa, M. & Krewskia, D. (2008). Men having sex with men
donor deferral risk assessment: an analysis using risk management principles.
Transfusion Medicine Reviews, 22, 35–57.
3 Wainberg, M. A., Shuldiner, T., Dahl, K. & Gilmore, N. (2010). Reconsidering the
lifetime deferral of blood donation by men who have sex with men. Canadian
Medical Association Journal. Doi: 10.1503/cmaj.091476.
Deferring Blood Donation from Men Who Have Sex with Men
79