The U.S. Food and Drug Administration soon will permit men who have had sex with other men to donate blood — but only if they haven’t been sexually active for a year. So most gay men still won’t be eligible to donate, and the nation’s blood supply will continue to suffer for it.

The FDA’s recent decision to replace its 31-year-old ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with other men with a yearlong deferral has been met with praise from some advocates, but anger from others. The agency says that its decision is scientifically sound and that the latest research does not support eliminating the deferral period.

Others disagree. Gay rights advocates and health organizations call the policy further discrimination masquerading as progress. The American Civil Liberties Union has encouraged the FDA to refine its donation criteria to reflect scientific standards instead of what it calls outmoded prejudices, pointing out that for most gay men, a yearlong donation deferral is the equivalent of a lifetime ban.

It’s hard for the FDA to justify its decision, considering that all blood donations are screened for the HIV virus regardless of their source. The AIDS crisis of the 1980s is over; while gay men still have a greater risk of contracting HIV than other donors, that risk isn’t great enough to merit the deferral.

For monogamous gay men who have tested HIV-negative, the risk of carrying HIV is as low as it is for straight or even abstinent people. Some nations have no deferral policy: Italy ended its lifetime deferral in 2001, opting instead to screen individuals for high-risk behaviors, such as a high number of sexual partners.

That sensible policy allows officials to weed out high-risk donors regardless of sexual orientation, and get blood to people who need it. A 2013 review of Italy’s policy found it did not result in a greater risk of HIV infections in donations.

Such a policy would take a little extra work, but the benefits are well worth it. The FDA and blood banks nationwide regularly remind us that there is not enough blood in the nation’s supply for all the sick people who need it. Eliminating the FDA’s deferral would not just end a discriminatory policy, but it also could save many more lives.

Ensuring the safety of the blood supply must be the FDA’s first priority, so it is understandable that the agency decided to reform its policy incrementally. Critics are right to urge the FDA to develop a fair and progressive donation policy, but the agency must first make certain that it can do so without risking the safety of the blood supply. That means, among other changes, training blood banks to conduct careful checks of would-be donors.

The FDA’s announcement likely won’t be the last word. The agency will continue to review and revise its policy; if public pressure remains steady, it may yet devise a rule that is based more on reason than on an irrational fear of gay men.

First Published January 2, 2015, 5:00 a.m.