One easy way to fix coronavirus-caused blood bank shortages

As the United States goes into lockdown during coronavirus “social distancing” protocols, many unexpected consequences have ensued from society more or less shutting down. One such consequence few saw coming was a massive shortage at blood banks across the country, as blood donations dry up due to self-isolation.

According to USA Today, roughly 2,700 blood drive events have faced cancellation as we collectively steer clear of mass gatherings. So, too, the number of walk-ins donating blood has sharply declined at donation centers across the country. All this has resulted in roughly 86,000 fewer donations, the Red Cross says.

The most alarming part: Many hospitals are down to just two or three days of blood supply.

This is a grave issue. If hospitals run out of blood donations to use in transfusions, this could reduce their capacity to treat many noncoronavirus-related patients who suffer trauma, are in car crashes, or so on. There are lives on the line.

One way to help: If you are young, healthy, and at low-risk for coronavirus, briefly step out from self-quarantine and go donate blood. It’s the easiest way to save a life during this pandemic. Click here to find a donation center near you.

“One of the most important things people can do right now during this public health emergency is to give blood,” Red Cross President and CEO Gail McGovern said. “If you are healthy and feeling well, please make an appointment to donate as soon as possible. We understand why people may be hesitant to come out for a blood drive but want to reassure the public that blood donation is a safe process, and that we have put additional precautions in place at our blood drives to protect the health and safety of our donors and staff.”

However, I’d be remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to point out that at the same time public officials are crying out for people to donate blood, archaic laws remain on the books that make it nearly impossible for entire subgroups of people to do so, such as gay and bisexual men.

Under current FDA regulations, any man who has had sex with another man in the last year is barred from donating blood, including those who are married or in long-term, monogamous relationships. This sweeping-restriction may have had a purpose once at the peak of the AIDS crisis when HIV was hard to detect. But now, it clearly does not meaningfully serve public health, as it arbitrarily disqualifies millions of people from donating blood amid a crisis and shortage.

It would make more sense to ask questions about potential donors’ sexual practices. A promiscuous heterosexual man is certainly more likely to have an infectious disease, even HIV, than a monogamous gay couple.

Even the Red Cross explicitly advocates abolishing the anti-gay restriction, saying “blood donation eligibility should not be determined by methods that are based upon sexual orientation.” Clearly, they would not take this position if doing so was unsafe in any meaningful way.

All blood donations are already tested rigorously before entering the donation pool. Only 1 in 3.1 million HIV-infected donations will make it through the screening process, and tests can detect HIV as early as 11 days after infection.

We should all do what we can to help during this crisis. For many, that should mean going out to donate blood. But for our policymakers and elected officials, it means eliminating archaic regulations that are keeping people from helping their fellow citizens.

Related Content