Editorial | Speaking out on the ban

In the ongoing debate over the FDA's ban on men who have sex with men (MSM) donating blood, it's time for Penn to take an actual stand on the issue.

And as the Undergraduate Assembly debates whether or not Penn should examine the ban's conflicts with its nondiscrimination policy, there's a right way for universities to respond, and there's a wrong way.

San Jose University, for example, recently banned all blood drives on campus in a foolish attempt to make a statement against the FDA. Such a misguided move, however, would only further limit a tight blood supply, harming patients instead of helping change policy.

Stanford offers a better approach.

That university's Medical School has publicly urged the FDA to repeal the "overly restrictive" ban, but still encourages people to donate blood. In doing so, Stanford has struck a delicate balance between opposing a policy and still providing essential services to patients.

The Red Cross, American Association of Blood Banks, America's Blood Center and even the director of Penn's Center for Bioethics, Arthur Caplan, all identify the ban as medically unwarranted.

They suggest that the FDA institute a one-year deferral period for MSM instead, just like the policy for most other at-risk groups. By publicly stating that the ban is unnecessary, the University can be an agent for change.

Many members and organizations in the medical community are recognizing that it's time to change an FDA policy that was once justified but is now simply outdated. It's time for Penn to join them.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.