gay

I recently read this Pink News article entitled “Government defends ban on gay men giving blood”.

Ms Primarolo, the Minister of State for Public Health, said:

“Current policy excludes men who have ever had sex with men, whatever their sexual orientation, from blood donation.

“The United Kingdom adopts a highly precautionary approach to blood safety.

“The guiding principle is that if the best available evidence shows that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a course of action will improve the safety of the blood, this action should be taken.

“The Department is committed to regularly reviewing this evidence, and has asked its expert advisory committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs to do this in 2009.”
(from: Pink News Last accessed: 12th February 09)

So let’s look at the debate For & Against

For

The National Blood Service (NBS) test the blood for HIV and other infections anyway.

There have been massive HIV education and safe sex initiatives nationally aimed at the gay community generally as well as specific ones aimed at men who have sex with men. (This is easily visable if you walk in to any gay bar – all will have condoms.)

The evidence base that the National Blood Service (NBS) use to justify the ban is out of date. (If you email them – they will send you the related evidence.) In addition to this you can use evidence base to prove almost anything by selecting the evidence that demonstrates what you wish it too.

Recently HIV rates have increased and continue to do so in hetrosexuals (see Hetrosexual HIV Cases Show An Increase). Despite this they have not banned Hetrosexuals. This point justifies my next:

Hetrosexuals can be as sexually risky as men whom have sex with men.

Why a life time ban? What if you are a man that’s had sex with a man but had a HIV (and other STI’s tests) that have all come back negative. These men are still unable to give blood, even though they have been screened as negative (and may not have had sex since).

Equality. The Goods and Services Legislation (2007) state that people should not be excluded from services because of their sexual orintation. The NBS is a service and is excluding men that have sex with men (of which a large proporation identify as gay or bisexual) because of the very fact of their sexual orintation.

The final reason relates to the fact that there is a storage of blood donors and blood. The NBS is excluding a whole community of people when there is a shortage of both donors and blood. This doesn’t make sense to me. I mean they test the blood (and/or it’s components) anyway.

Against

The safety of the blood. Men who have sex with men are at a higher risk of HIV infection.

Men who have sex with men are a minority group. A much smaller community than the mainstream community. Therefore the HIV transmittion is likely to spread through a smaller community quicker as men are more likely to come in to contact with a HIV positive person.

Thinking about it I think the NBS are hiding behind the “safety of the blood” statement. They refuse to recognise that as men who have sex with men are a smaller group and as such their rates of HIV transmittion are always going to be higher than that of a much larger community.

Interesting linka:
Facts missing in HIV-blood debate
NBS – Position Statement
PETER TATCHELL says the ban on gay blood donors is based on homophobic myths that stereotype and demonise gay men.
NUS – LGBT Donation not discrimination
My Telegraph – Mike Rouse

The last link My Telegraph – Mike Rouse, relates to a online petition to the Prime Ministers No. 10 site that I signed (see No. 10 Petitions). A total of 5,234 signatures signed the petition at the time. But I think we didn’t have a massive response as many people in the hetrosexual world are totally unaware of this ban.

This post demonstrates that there aren’t many reasons against why men who have sex with men giving blood, yet there are many reasons for men who have sex with men to give blood.

Just food for thought,

Antony