Your Blood's No Good Here

Last week, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance of South Africa staged an unusual protest. Some of its male members donated blood, violating the blood donation criteria of the South African National Blood Service (or SANBS), which forbids donations from men ‘who have had sex with other men in the last five years.’ The Alliance claims the SANBS donation criteria is discriminatory, because the blood of young women between the ages of 18-24 -- the group with the highest HIV prevalence in the country – can be accepted. Furthermore, the SANBS has high-tech equipment that detects HIV in donated blood before it is used, and this constitutes another layer of protection. While such equipment cannot detect HIV in the blood of newly infected persons, this is in itself no reason to reject ‘gay’ blood and accept the blood of young women. For its part, the SANBS argues that it is merely following international guidelines to protect the safety of the blood supply.

The issue of the ‘gay blood ban’ extends far beyond Africa’s borders. A few years ago, protests were staged in Hong Kong. In Australia, a gay man has recently filed charges against the Australian Red Cross. The ban has been the object of student protests from Ireland to Montreal. In the United States, while the scientific basis of the ban has been questioned a number of times, a proposal to relax the ban was narrowly rejected by a Food and Drug Adminstration committee back in 2000.

The FDA rules on blood donation are really the heart of the matter, because they form the basis of the donation criteria for the American Red Cross and the Red Cross in most (if not all) other countries. In 1985, the FDA proposed the rule that a man could not donate blood if he had sex with another man – even once – since 1977. The rule obviously harks to a time when HIV/AIDS was considered a ‘gay disease’.

But how should this rule be considered in areas of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV/AIDS is largely transmitted heterosexually? The WHO states that blood donations should come from groups with low risk of TTIs (transfusion transmissible infections) but seems to acknowledge that high risk groups may be different in different regions of the world. Should blood donation criteria be determined by the most current epidemiological data on HIV prevalence among social groups, or should one forget social groups altogether, and concentrate on the risk behavior of individuals who wish to donate their blood? In either case, it seems irrational -- if not unethical -- to exclude people from donating blood on the basis of their sexual orientation alone.
- Stuart Rennie, Our Man in Holland

posted Jan 19, 2006 | link | jump to the comments (8)

comments

I went to give blood sometime in the spring of '00 and was informed that I couldn't give blood if I had used "street drugs," and cocaine was given as an example. I had sniffed cocaine sometime within the couple of months before the blood drive, so I walked out. I haven't donated any blood since.

- by AS on Jan 26, 2006 at 2:47 PM | link

I really disagree with this. I too, find it discriminating to the gay people. It is true that HIV/AIDs is highest among women ages 18-24. It's not the "gay disease" anymore. With the equipment that we have now a days we can detect the virus quicker and just because in 1985 it was passed that any man who have intercourse with another male in the past 5 years is not allowed to donate blood is unrealistic. The way modern medicine is now there is no reason for this to continue. Gay people should be allowed to donate blood too.

- by Stacey on Jan 26, 2006 at 8:55 PM | link

Being able to donate blood is not a human right. Using gender and sexual history to determine donation eligibility should be allowed, but only if there is a *very* good reason.
HIV/AIDS is such a reason. When even a single blood donation containing HIV gets past screening, the consequences are severe.
HIV/AIDS is certainly not a 'gay disease' -- but nevertheless, about half the people in the US living with AIDS self-identify as men who have had sex with other men. If disqualifying (2.5 -- 3.5)% of donors can eliminate 50% of all the donated blood that contains HIV, it would be foolish not to use this criterion somehow in deciding eligibility.
If you don't believe those figures, check this out: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.htm
It may be that there is a better question that could be used. Perhaps "Have you had sex with another man, even once, during the last (some length of time)?" or some variation on this, possibly with a followup question about HIV testing.
Very similar reasoning is used for the questions mean to screen out risk for vCJD. In that case, the questions are the only line of defense we have to date, so they are in that respect more important. But on the other hand, HIV is a lot more common than vCJD.
A final quibble.. the rule does not determine eligibility based on sexual orientation. The question asked (only for men) is not "are you gay," but "have you had sex, even once, with another man since 1977?"
There are straight men who are ineligible to donate blood due to this rule. There are gay men who are eligible in spite of this rule.
Obviously the net effect tends to highly discriminate sexual orientiation as well. But I think it's important to be precise in these matters.

- by Electrolux on Jan 27, 2006 at 7:42 AM | link

I don't think that this discriminates against gay and lesbian people. I think it is protecting the population from having the HIV/AIDS virus spread unknowingly. I think that the criteria must be strict in order to decrease the chance of transmission. It is not unreasonable to ask such questions as, Have you has unprotected sex in the last____years?", or for men, "Have you had sex with another man in the last____years?" These are not discriminating questions. The virus can not be detected on the newly infected. Therefore there need to be guidelines and timeframes for the ability to even test for the virus. I think even gay and lesbian people can donate blood as long as they meet the criteria and timeframes. There is a blood shortage and we use all the donors we can get. The fact remains that there still needs to be guidelines to prevent further transmission of the virus.

- by Jan B. on Jan 28, 2006 at 8:29 AM | link

I think people need to calm down about every little thing that can be construed as offensive and discriminate and start to think with some logic. I went to give blood and was refused because I had a yellow fever immunization before going on a mission trip to Brazil. So should I be offended and never give blood again? No, I should be glad that the Red Cross is doing their job and protecting the blood supply for my family and friends. If you are offend by any questions needed to be ask before donating then don't donate. How hard is that to figure out. Thanks to all who can get beyond themselves and donate.

- by Karen Schreffler on Jan 28, 2006 at 4:51 PM | link

I think that people who want to help people by donating blood is great, but you have to realize your own health before doing it. I understand that there is alot of discrimination in this world, but put that aside for a moment. Think! Are you really helping anybody if you are contaminating the blood supply because of your own inability to face the facts about certain blood borne diseases and their origins. Lets be real here, if I had doubts about my own health why would I want to donate to someone who obviously is in worse shape than me to begin with and only causing them potentially more harm ,because of your own immorality.

- by Eamigh on Jan 29, 2006 at 1:51 PM | link

In a life and death situation where a blood transfusion is the ultimate cure or need, do we really think of where the blood has come from. It is blood, it is life, most of all it goes through a great deal of testing for disease before it is put out for use. Most people that do not want to die want whatever it takes to keep them alive. I found this to be more that true in my job as an ICU nurse. The smoker whats to smoke, but if he is going to die he wants to go on the ventilator and then smoke again when off. The only people that I have ever known to refuse blood are Jehova Witness(I know that is spelled wrong, you know what I mean). We need to not discriminate against people because we do not like how they live their lives. I think that what they can give us if they are giving freely of themselves. Organ donation, blood, and their money they are all valuable to modern medicine and the lives we all value so much.

- by Karen Nellis on Feb 7, 2006 at 4:40 PM | link

The red cross needs guidelines in order to make sure the blood is safe. What is wrong with these people, would they want a loved one or themselves to get contaminated blood? The are many reason that people can not donate blood, should they be out protesting? I really think they should be asking all men and women about their sexual behavior before donating blood.

- by Esther Long on Feb 8, 2006 at 4:08 PM | link