Gay Blood Ban Challenge
posted: 10/08/2009
Despite all the improvements in HIV testing and treatment, gay and bisexual men are still barred from ever donating blood. The blood of every single man who has ever had sex with another man, whether or not they used protection, is apparently too likely to contaminate UK blood banks.
This article is part of the public debate about whether the ban should be lifted. It's not George House Trust's official position. People living with HIV simply cannot donate blood. We are an organisation supporting people living with HIV, so the ban makes no difference to people using our services.
However George House Trust does have a concern about this ban sending out out-dated messages about HIV. We also think the ban reinforces HIV stigma and homophobia, and neither of these help reduce the spread of HIV.
Is the ban still justified?
The fact that every single blood donation is screened using two different and very sensitive virus tests strongly suggests that, conscious or not, the continued existence of this ban is the result of an underlying prejudice, an example of 'institutionalised homophobia'.
The National Blood Service (NBS) justifies its position with the 'window period.' Some viruses can't be detected in blood when the infection was recent - the so-called 'window period'. So the NBS argues it should not take blood from homosexual and bisexual men.
'Window Period' is history
In the past, the HIV tests available to screen blood had problems - there was a significant gap when someone could have HIV but the tests we had could not find this. The old tests looked for antibodies to HIV and these antibodies take weeks (sometimes months) to appear. You could have HIV and the tests wouldn't find it. This was the fear of NBS - undetected HIV would get into the public blood supply. Things are now very different. Now there is almost no window period when HIV is undetectable by the NBS.
Blink and you'll miss the window period
But the NBS seems unwilling to admit these changes and update its practice from two decades ago. Given these significant improvements in blood screening, does this justify the lifetime exclusion for gay and bi men from donating blood? The answer is simply no.
Statistically, a gay man is more likely to have HIV than most heterosexuals: however, the same vetting process that decides if a heterosexual's blood can be accepted, based on their sexual activity, should be good enough for gay men too. If it isn't, then we should all be worried about the entire vetting process.
There is a huge inconsistency in the NBS's argument. We are told that the blood screening process is reliable and effective. But in some unexplained way it is not good enough to screen the blood of gay men. Hepatitis and HIV, and the biological components of blood, aren't any different in gay men. Either the screening works for everyone, or it doesn't work for anyone.
The problem with the NBS's ban is that it is no longer 'reasonably justifiable' discrimination. If the screening process and vetting processes are good enough there is no need to treat the blood offered by gay men and heterosexuals any differently. Scientific progress seems to have removed this risk to the blood supply.
Illegal sexuality discrimination?
The NBS, in sticking to its position in the face of the evidence, risks breaking the law and may face claims for illegal discrimination, because of sexuality.
Black Africans and gay men - the rules discriminate
The same statistics that the NBS use to argue their case also show that 46% of those newly diagnosed with HIV in the UK are black African. NBS logic should mean a permanent exclusion on blood donations by black Africans. The NBS has one rule for gay men and another for black and heterosexual Africans. No one would contemplate banning donors on grounds of race. Therefore, since no legitimate scientific reason seems to exist, why do we allow the ban on gay men because of their sexuality to remain?
Flu blood demand pressures
The NBS's plans to increase blood stocks by nearly 38% to meet increased needs due to the swine flu epidemic means that less people are eligible to donate. Is it still sensible to exclude approximately 2 million gay male donors? The position seems even more ridiculous when we consider that only 4% of those who are allowed to give blood actually donate any.
Source edited
Terrence Higgins Trust current policy
Permalink