With the Penn State-Michigan State Blood Donor Challenge nearing completion, some students who wanted to give blood might have been turned away because of blood donation restrictions.
Tim Wilson (senior-film and video) is one such person. Because he is openly gay, he cannot donate blood.
Having donated in the past, Wilson knows the donor restrictions prevent him from giving blood in the future. However, he said, the constant publicity surrounding blood drives makes it difficult to not feel guilty about the inability to donate.
"It's one thing to have this policy, but to then try and guilt people into giving blood isn't fair," he said.
Wilson is not alone in his exclusion from blood donation. Others who are barred from donating blood include those who have been raped, have received or paid money or drugs for sex, have lived or traveled outside the United States, and have taken illegal, non-prescription drugs.
Marianne Spampinato, spokeswoman for the Greater Alleghenies Region Red Cross, said all guidelines for blood donation are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and must be strictly followed.
Although the Red Cross tests all blood donations it receives, restrictions must still be placed on certain potential donors because it is always possible for a test to be incorrect, she said.
"[The FDA] tends to be extremely conservative in their policies to prevent transmission of diseases," Spampinato said.
Paul Richards, spokesman for the FDA, said donor exclusion criteria are based on two general requirements.
"The donation cannot be injurious to the donor, and the donated blood cannot be unnecessarily hazardous to the recipient," he said.
Richards said that while he understands that the FDA's strict policies eliminate some safe donors, it is the best way to protect the nation's blood supply.
John Nobiletti, spokesman for the Greater Alleghenies Region Red Cross, said there is a high risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD) from promiscuous heterosexuals, but they are not banned from giving blood.
Men who have had sex with a man and women who have had sex with a man who has had sex with a man cannot donate blood even if they used a condom, Nobiletti said. This is because there is a higher incidence of disease among that population, Nobiletti added. In addition, people who have taken intravenous drugs or smoked cocaine cannot donate blood, he said.
Rape victims are also prohibited from donating blood for one year following their attack because there is a chance they might have contracted an STD from their attacker.
This restriction is not meant to add insult to injury, Nobiletti said, but it is necessary because the victim is at a very high risk for having an STD such as HIV or hepatitis.
When people apply to give blood, they are not directly asked if they have been raped, but the blood donor questionnaires are designed so information will be revealed based on their answers to the "yes or no" questions.
People who have lived or traveled to most countries outside of the United States are also ineligible to donate blood because of certain diseases found in those countries that are not easily detectable using the standard tests at blood banks.
If a person has traveled to or lived in the United Kingdom, for example, they are indefinitely deferred from donating blood because there is a fear that the person may have contracted variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, a human form of mad cow disease.
People who have lived in certain parts of Africa are at a higher risk of contracting HIV Group O, which is not detectable by today's standard blood tests, Nobiletti said. People who have traveled to or lived in many areas where malaria is prominent, such as Mexico or the Caribbean, are also prohibited from blood donation for a period of one to three years because they are at an increased risk for having the disease.
Nobiletti said blood donor restrictions are not meant to reflect badly on potential donors; they are put in place to ensure the safety of the blood supply and its recipients.
"At the end of every blood component, there is a living, breathing human," he said. "We do not want to do harm to that person in any way."
Nobiletti said changes in donor restrictions would not have made a difference in this year's blood challenge totals.
"I don't think it would add appreciably to the donor pool," Nobiletti said. "Lifting restrictions only puts the recipient at risk."
He said that while the restrictions do eliminate 50 percent of potential donors, only five percent of eligible donors actually give blood, which is what makes the biggest difference.
Nobiletti added that new technology is constantly being created to increase the effectiveness of blood testing that could potentially lead to the FDA reevaluating donor restrictions.
