Science, Discrimination, and the Blood Supply - Case Study Example

Science, Discrimination, and the Blood Supply The main policy concepts The FDA policy on blood supply and drug donation highlights some sensitive concepts such as discrimination. The policy is intended to regulate the blood collected from blood drives to ensure the blood is as secure as possible. In its endeavor to ensure the safety of the blood, the FDA policy uses discriminatory methods whereby men donors who have sex with other men since 1975 are not allowed to donate blood. Another FDA concept is the use of science to discriminate against MSM. Use of scientific testing as the basis for discriminating MSM has attracted interest from different people. One of the sparking concerns is the verity that the policy has a lifetime ban on MSM saying that they pose as high risk people, and therefore, their blood can increase chances of HIV infections among blood recipients. This has strike controversy in the sense that FDA supposes to rely on scientific data while exercising their discrimination, yet the same scientific discovery has improved blood screening techniques, making sure that blood from donors is free (SJSU, 2008). The testing is carried in an up to date scientific way that 3 weeks HIV virus can be detected from the blood. Stakeholders There are different stakeholders who are directly and indirectly affected by the FDA policy. One of the major stakeholders in FDA policy is the gay men groups who have had sex with other men since 1975. They are the main subjects of the much heated and controversial debate. MSM are directly affected by the policy in that they cannot exercise their altruism gift of giving back to the society. Blood recipients are other stakeholders who are directly affected by the policy. The reason that MSM men are disallowed to donate blood is for the sole purpose of safeguarding blood recipients from receiving blood that is infected. Other stakeholders include the general blood donors such as the campus blood drives that are indirectly affected by decisions of their leaders. For instance, SJSU university students cannot donate blood inside the school as this will contravene the university rules. However, they are allowed to donate blood outside school at their discretion. The other essential groups of stakeholders include scientists and AABB’s committee that encompasses the American Red Cross, college of American pathologists, advanced medical technology association and the U.S defense department. The scientific group is significant because their researches and observations form the basis of opinions by both FDA and the donors. The local community (people allowed to donate blood) is another category of stakeholders. The development and implementation of the public policy The discrimination policy on FDA was put in place in 1983; a time when HIV risks were extremely high. FDA has held on to the concept despite the development of improved methods of testing viruses. FDA is condemned of not taking any research since it instituted the policy, in a bid to tighten its measures. The policy has been criticized by numerous bodies including the American Red Cross that holds that life time ban on MSM in unwarranted. The only development in that article is when the FDA advisory committee met in 2000 to consider a proposal to reduce the ban to a period of five years. However, this was strongly contested by Andrew Dayton; FDA medical officer holding that it will result in the worst case scenario where 1 in 750,000 will slip through. As the paper concludes, FDA has not developed any measures to change its stand on a decision made three decades ago, in spite of mounting pressures from different sources. The effectiveness of the policy and its ability to meet stated goals (if possible) The policy has succeeded in its discriminatory technique, but it has not succeeded in giving a justified reason for its move. The policy has been criticized for operating on “superstition” rather than science. The discriminatory act that attracted SJSU to adopt a measure to withdraw from blood donation hinders the goals the policy was set to achieve. The policy set to achieve safe blood and in large quantities. However, the controversy surrounding the issue can scare potential donors, eventually resulting in low blood supply. At the end of it all, patients will end up suffering due to reduced blood donation. The policy may be effective but not to the maximum. Analysis with recommendations for improving or modifying the policy Following results from different body of researchers, men who had no sex with other men in the past five years were found to be no riskier than men who had sex with other men in 1977. As such, the policy needs to be adjusted. Chances of being infected by undetected virus are fewer than being hit by lightning. This clearly shows that blood screening techniques are as effective as possible (CDC, 2013). One of the ways to improve the policy is to eliminate the lifetime ban, probably to twenty years, and keep on adjusting the years slowly by slowly. This will eventually increase blood supply. This move will also eliminate discrimination as time goes by and probably bodies like SJSU will reverse its move. By looking at the aspect of discrimination is a more realistic manner, FDA may be absolutely sure that all donors fill the donation questionnaire in absolute truth. There is a probability that an MSM man may pose a heterosexual and be considered normal donor. Eventually, this will go into the blood reserve as blood from allowed donors. By adjusting the policy, probably this may not happen as all people will feel equally treated. Analysis in the contemporary policy literature My individual analysis is that FDA policy is discriminatory, putting in mid the advances in scientific development. It is also ironical that America blood supply is among the safest, yet FDA holds on to a policy that was enacted at a time when there was little knowledge on blood screening and testing for HIV. Further, the body can embrace, and incorporate social aspects in its policy to ensure that MSM people will exercise their gift relationship. Genome amplification and sensitive HIV screening of blood should be carried out in every transfusion (Lackritz, 2013). Along with these modern techniques, the life time ban should be reduced gradually so as to increase blood supply and cultivate a spirit of social inclusion of all people. In addition, scientific development in HIV testing renders the FDA policy obsolete (Ogilvie, 2011). References: CDC. (2013). HIV transmission through transfusion. Retrieved on 30 April 2013 from< http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5941a3.htm>. Lackritz, E.M. (2013). Prevention of HIV transmission by blood in the developing world: achievements and continuing challenges. Retrieved on 30 April 2013from< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9632988>. Ogilvie, P.J. (2011). Pro/Con: Two Views Of U.S Prohibiting Gay Men’s Blood Donation. Retrieved on 30 April 2013 from< http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/10/health/la-he- gay-men-blood-donors-20111010>. SJSU. (2008). Science, Discrimination, and the Blood Supply: San José State University’s Blood Drive Ban. Retrieved on 30 April 2013 from< http://info.sjsu.edu>. Read More