Who should donate blood? Policy decisions on donor deferral criteria should protect recipients and be fair to donors

An important element in the development of voluntary blood donation schemes throughout the world has been the attention given to minimising the risk to recipients of donated blood, primarily the risk of transfusion transmitted infections. In response to the appearance of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the 1980s a range of national policies emerged that excluded populations at high risk of contracting HIV from donating blood, with a particular focus on men who have sex with men (MSM), the primary reason being the protection of recipients of donated blood. Recently some countries, including the UK, have revised their policies, informed by advances in screening tests, epidemiological evidence of transmission rates and an increasing concern about unfair discrimination of specific groups in society. Policy makers face a difficult task of balancing safety of recipients; an adequate blood supply for those who require transfusion; and societal/legal obligations to treat everyone fairly. Given that no transfusion is risk free, the question is what degree of risk is acceptable in order to meet the needs of recipients and society. Decisions about acceptance of risk are complex and policy makers who set acceptable risk levels must provide ethically justifiable reasons for their decisions. We suggest it is possible to provide a set of reasons that stakeholders could agree are relevant based on careful evaluation of the evidence of all relevant risks and explicit acknowledgement of other morally relevant values. We describe using such a process in the Safety of Blood Tissue and Organs (SaBTO) review of donor deferral criteria related to sexual behaviour.