Around the world, there is a blood donation ban for gay and bisexual men, and all the other men who have ever had sex with men in their entire lives (i.e. suburban dads who frequent state highway bathrooms, those hanging out in the bushes in parks, those gay for pay strippers and porn actors). American Red Cross, Hema-Quebec, Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service are just a few of the organizations, across the globe, that restrict men who have sex with other men from donating blood during their entire lifetime. 

Decisions to restrict blood donation are embedded in the policies of government health agencies. For example, Health Canada, The Food and Drug Agency in the U.S., or Britain’s Health Protection Agency are the government bodies regulating or permitting the continued discrimination. These agencies responded to the HIV epidemic in the 80’s with sweeping, and - at the time - understandable bans.

It made good sense (kind of, not really), when these policies came about. In the 80’s, HIV-tainted blood and the ensuing scandals were all the rage. So, to limit HIV in donated blood (since screening for the virus was not yet created), the agencies set in motion regulations that barred people considered at increased risk of contracting and transmitting HIV from donating blood. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men, are 7 times more likely to contract HIV than the rest of the population, and in the 80’s, that number was much much higher. 

In a recent article in Canada’s The Globe and Mail, Andre Pacard wrote, “Giving blood is not a right. The overriding responsibility of blood collection and distribution agencies is not to ensure all Canadians are allowed to join in this altruistic act, but to ensure the safety of blood and blood products for recipients.”

Yet, Pacard continues, “At the same time, these agencies must strive to ensure there is an adequate supply of blood, which saves the lives of thousands upon thousands of people each year. This is not an easy balancing act. Some donor exclusions are justifiable and necessary. Some are perhaps justifiable but are neither necessary nor useful. Regardless of exclusions, there is the additional safeguard of testing. Blood is consistently tested for HIV-AIDS, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and syphilis, and these tests are quite sensitive. 

“Th(e) approach (of denying gay men) was entirely appropriate when it was introduced in 1983. Today, the policy seems horribly outdated, based on current science. It makes little sense to defer a heterosexual man who has had unprotected sex with a female prostitute from blood donation for a single year, but to impose a lifetime ban on a homosexual man who has been celibate for many years. 

A recent study supports lifting the ban. In the study, it is estimated that lifting the lifetime ban would result in 136,000 more donations annually without compromising safety, and that the theoretical risk of contamination is one unit of blood every 18 years, a risk classified as “infinitesimally low.”

Also, most research looking at the risk of blood donations by gay men have focused on the high-risk population, those with multiple partners. But few studies have been done on those - the majority - in long-term, stable relationships. There is no reason to believe their risk profile differs from most heterosexuals.

International protests are rising, not just from the scientific world. Today, May 8, 2008, students from campuses throughout Northern Ireland are campaigning for the National Union of Students – Union of Students in Ireland Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (NUS-USI LGBT) day of action over the ‘gay blood donation ban’. Also, over the past couple of years, universities across the U.S. are banning blood drives on campuses, citing homophobic policies on the part of the collecting agencies as the reason. Similar protests and bans are occurring on campuses across Canada. 

Australia has recently changed its rules. It now refuses blood donations from gay men who have had “man-to-man sex” in the past 12 months (which is still homophobic, but whatever). Italy, for its part, asks donors if they have had a new sexual partner or unprotected sex during the past year. Other agencies are also considering lifting the ban, such as Canada Blood Service, and the Scottish and British Parliaments have committees investigating the ban and the new science discrediting the need for the continued ban. 

Until these bans are reversed, these international blood agencies deserve the title of Homophobe of the Week for May 5th to 12th, 2008, here at blurbberry.