It’s time to end gay blood donation ban

By Tom King

Update: The e-petitions website seems to be struggling today, therefore the link to the survey may not work. We’re chasing this up with DirectGov.

>> Sign the e-petition to end the gay blood donation ban <<

Earlier this week, David Hodges warned that the Right was already organising to use the Government’s new petition to advance their agenda. This morning, on the day the site is launched, the Daily Mail’s front-page serves as an advert for one petition, launched by right-wing bloggers, calling for the restoration of the death penalty.

Instead of allowing the Right to dominate this platform, David urged us to “put the front foot forward and show off our values”. I can think of no better place for us to start than LGBT rights. Labour is the only party that delivers on equality and we need to remain so.

I’ve recently been working on getting my CLP to back a motion, calling for the blanket lifetime ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood to be overturned, and last week they did so unanimously. Throughout the process of having this motion approved, members have voiced their opposition to discrimination in any form, but, have, quite rightly, raised safety concerns. I’ve had to ensure that my argument has been well-researched and can stand scrutiny.

Its on the back of this that I’ve submitted an e-petition calling for the donation ban on men who have had sex with men to be removed and replaced with a new donor screening procedure, based on risk not sexual orientation.

The current ban on MSM blood donations has no scientific foundation and is grounded purely in prejudices stemming from the AIDs panic of the 1980s. I see absolutely no reason why gay and bisexual men, who practice safe sex, pose any threat to the blood stocks, in fact not allowing them to donate further exacerbates the blood shortage.

There are some serious questions we need to ask about the current screening process used by the National Blood Service. Why are heterosexual donors not asked if they’ve had unprotected sex? Why should condom-using gay men face a lifetime ban? Why is sleeping with a prostitute safer than sleeping with a man?

It’s clear that the donor screening is flawed. There is no safety mechanism to stop a heterosexual man who has regular unprotected one night stands from donating blood. The screening questions imply that sex between two men is inherently a higher risk activity than sex between a man and a woman, or for that matter between two women. Wearing a condom just isn’t enough to stop a gay man contracting AIDs, it would seem.

So, why not change the rules? Ask everyone whether they have safe sex or not, and base the decision on whether they should be allowed to donate on that. Why can’t we use this system? Are gay men more likely to lie about their sexual practices? Many countries across the world have already dropped their bans in favour of risk-based criteria, and that’s what my motion calls for us to do here in Britain. Even a country as viciously homophobic as Russia, where Pride marches are broken up by police, has scrapped its lifetime ban on MSM blood donation.

So in light of my desire to see new screening criteria, I’m very pleased that the government is reviewing the National Blood Service. However, early indications are disappointing. It seems the review will suggest dropping the ban in favour of a 10 year deferral period; gay and bisexual men can donate as long as they haven’t had sex at all in the last decade. If this decision is truly being made on scientific evidence, my question to those scientists is how many people with undiagnosed HIV live more than 10 years? It’s farcical.

The problem with screening blood for HIV is that the tell-tale antibodies often take one to three months to become identifiable in lab tests. The HIV virus can be picked up from two weeks after infection. The blood service currently only tests for the anti-bodies and not the virus itself, it might therefore be advisable to test for both.

So if we accept that HIV will be detectable three months after infection and that HIV can only be transmitted by unprotected sex, then the deferral need only be a matter of months, say six to be extra safe, and need only to apply to those who have had unsafe sex.

I’m more than aware of the high levels of HIV/AIDs amongst gay men, and that is an absolute tragedy in itself. It should not, however, mean that three million potentially safe blood donors should face discrimination. I urge you to sign the petition; not only to assert our values and set the agenda, but to consign this 1980s discrimination to the history books.

You can also get your CLP to call for the ban to be overturned, my motion can be found here.