Gay Blood Donor Ban Plans

posted: 03/11/2009

The longstanding ban on gay men giving blood, for fear that HIV might get into the country's blood supply, was debated last week as part of a national consultation.

The meeting, held by the Independent Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs, is part of the latest review of the long list of people banned from giving blood for life.

Gay men and other men who have ever had sex with another man, people who have injected drugs, prostitutes and those who have ever had syphilis, hepatitis B or hepatitis C are all banned for life. Others are banned for a shorter time, such as people who have visited some countries, or had sex with someone from some countries.

Suggestions

One suggestion for a new policy for gay men and blood donations was to allow donations from gay men who have not had sex with another man in the last five years, banning only those who have had anal sex rather than oral sex, and lifting the ban on women who have had sex with a gay or bisexual man.

The meeting began with talks from some experts. Dr Richard Tedder, a microbiologist from University College London, argued that viruses were "not politically correct" and pointed to windows of time before HIV could be detected in blood samples. He also cited issues with testing blood donations for HIV, saying that not all of the blood in one donation can be tested.

Professor Deirdre Kelly, a liver specialist from Birmingham Children's Hospital, spoke of the need for people to donate blood and said she was not satisfied that certain deferral and exclusion policies were consistent with estimated risk.

The audience also heard from a heart transplant patient who argued that lifting the lifetime ban on gay men would "de-demonise HIV and AIDS" and would create a larger pool of blood donors. The meeting was then opened up to the audience to have their say.

HIV organisations views
Yusef Azad, from the National AIDS Trust, said he believed population-based deterrents were justified but added: "If you look at five-year deferrals [for gay men] with fourth-generation HIV testing, there is no significant risk."
Nick Partridge, the chief executive of Terrence Higgins Trust, said research has found that the vast majority – 93 per cent – of gay men have complied with the current ban on donating blood. But he added: "I'm struggling to calculate how many gay men haven't had sex in five, ten years. What realistic difference would it make?" Dr Tedder said he did not think gay men who hadn't had sex for five years would make a significant difference to safety.

Professor Kelly raised the issue of heterosexual men who may have once had a gay experience and said it was problematic that they, and their wives and girlfriends, were barred from donating blood.

Deborah Jack, of NAT, asked whether men who have only had oral sex with another man posed a significant risk.

Demonstrators’ question time
A group of around 40 students, along with Peter Tatchell, had been protesting against the ban outside the conference venue in Greycoat Street. Several attended the meeting along with National Union of Students LGBT officer Daf Adley. Adley suggested that the blood service was missing out on donations from thousands of healthy men and also argued that including protected oral sex as a reason for banning some gay men sent out the wrong message, as young gay men were being informed that protected oral sex was safe. He called for gay men to be screened for blood donation according to their individual behaviour, rather than basing specifications on whole groups.
However, a number of experts present refuted this, saying the lengthy questioning procedure this would involve was simply not practical.

Matthew Beaver, a local councillor, introduced himself to the audience as a gay man and suggested that those in the closet posed a far greater risk to public safety than men who were openly and confidently gay. This was dismissed by Nick Partridge, who said he doubted this was happening.

Stonewall previously supported the lifetime ban on gay men but recently changed its position. Terrence Higgins Trust maintains the lifetime ban is necessary. Stonewall spokesman Derek Munn said: "It is difficult for us to have different views from Terrence Higgins Trust but we reached our current position from the input of our members. "To have men who have sex with men as a single undefinable category is like using a blunt instrument."

The last review, in January 2007, recommended that the policy of banning gay and bisexual men from donating blood should be continued. A study commissioned by the Health Protection Agency is currently underway to find out more about compliance with rules. It will be published next year. A Department of Health spokesman said that the findings from the current review will be announced in 2010.

Source
 

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