Blood donation saves lives. Few things define the selflessness of humanity more than giving the essence of your very life for another person. It's particularly important because blood cannot yet be artificially produced. Donation is a life-saving service, and so the Red Cross is always in search of new donors to bolster their supplies of blood.
The restrictions on blood donation should be reevaluated in order to maximize the amount of life-saving donations that can be made. Two particular instances should be carefully examined: donor deferral in regards to those traveling through regions with malaria occurrences, and the potential of lifting the year-long bar on gay men donating blood.
Until December 2015, men who have sex with men (MSM) were permanently banned from donating blood. The FDA relaxed that restriction instead to include gay men only if they remained celibate for a year. Modern diagnostics rely on a nucleic acid test, and it can detect HIV nine days after infection. Given this fact, a year-long celibacy period doesn't make much sense -- especially for monogamous relationships where neither party is positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Restrictions on donors exist to protect recipients -- travelers in some cases are also barred from blood donation. In fact, more than 66,000 donors are denied from donating blood in the United States because they've traveled through areas of Mexico with a high risk of malaria transmission. A study on this risk of malaria transmission was carried out in part by Susan Wilkinson from the University of Cincinnati, and was intended to determine if blood donation laws should be relaxed.
The study noted that, "Over 70% of blood donor deferrals were triggered by travel to the state of Quintana Roo on the Yucatán Peninsula, an area of very low malaria transmission. Eliminating the travel deferral requirement for all areas except the state of Oaxaca might result in the recovery of almost 65,000 blood donors annually at risk of approximately one contaminated unit collected every 20 years."
This is ultimately a situation where the potential benefit outweighs the risks, given the low malaria transmission rates in the areas that typically result in donor deferment. Very few people who travel through these areas contract malaria.
Other reasons why you might not be able to donate blood typically include carrying bloodborne illnesses or living in an area where exposure to contaminants might negatively impact the safety of your donation. Safety is the primary concern for anyone donating or receiving blood. All donated blood is tested for costly infectious diseases like hepatitis C and B as well as HIV.
Successfully donating blood can prove difficult for myriad of reasons. Even those who aren't medically rejected might be turned away because the clinic cannot handle the demand. Long waiting times and understaffed locations can both contribute to this. This combination leaves many would-be donors frustrated and they leave. UK clinics have this very same problem -- the year of 2014 marked a 40% increase in donors being turned away for non-medical reasons.
Particularly in times of tragedy, blood shortages can have disastrous consequences. In order to allow the most amount of people to safely donate blood, the restrictions placed on blood donation should be reviewed on a case by case basis. Rather than blanket restrictions, regional statistics and demographic data need to be considered in the decision process. Banning 60,000+ travelers who visited areas in Mexico known for malaria was intended as a safety precaution, yet given transmission statistics appears to be too cautious. A holistic view of the individual and the help they can provide is key. With worldwide blood shortages, can we continue to turn away donors with perfectly useable and safe blood?
David Kirby is a writer and columnist. You can find more of his work at Forbes.