Home » Current Affairs, Featured

Ban on Gay Blood: A Restriction In Vein

This week, a new report from the Williams Insitute at the School of Law in the University of California (UCLA) calculates that a staggering 219,000 US pints (or 103,626 litres) of viable blood is not available to blood donation services in the United States. On top of that, approximately 900 organs are also being refused from transplantation because of the sexual orientation of the donors. The American Red Cross and the American Association of Blood Banks have both called on the US Food and Drug Administration to lift the ban as it is now “medically and scientifically unwarranted”. Earlier this year, 18 US Senators called for the ban on blood donation in the US to be abandoned because modern screening methods were able to identify and prevent unhealthy blood from entering blood stocks. In a joint statement, the senators decried the perpetuation of this anachronistic and harmful ban:

Healthy blood donors are turned away every day due to an antiquated policy and our blood supply is not necessarily any safer for it.

The ban on blood and organ donation in the United States reflects similar restrictions which exist in Ireland against blood and organ donation from gay and bisexual men or any man who has ever had sex with another man. This “permanent deferral” was originally introduced globally to stem the rise of HIV/AIDS. Now, after 30 years of progress in medical diagnosis and screening methods for HIV, the objectives of the ban can be achieved through scientific procedure. So, why has the Irish Blood Transfusion Board not revisited the justification for the ban? In Ireland, organ transplantation services quiz the next-of-kin of the donor about specific aspects of the potential donor’s history, e.g. has their loved one recently received a tattoo, ever injected non-prescription drugs, or ever spent time in prison. One such criterion, which can automatically eliminate a potential donor from the donating his organs, is if the potential donor is male and has ever had sex with another man. Similarly, blood donation services in Ireland impose a permanent ban on men who have ever had sex with men; regardless of whether the potential donor uses condoms, whether it was just one occasion, or whether he is in a monogamous relationship. The Irish Blood Donation Service (IBTS) has repeatedly accepted that the lifetime ban against men who have sex with men (MSM) is discriminatory and based on the norms in medical procedures three decades ago when little was known of the origins of HIV/AIDS or how it was contracted. So how have they been justifying a ban–that the IBTS acknowledges to be “blatently discriminatory“–which refuses the donation of healthy blood from a perpetually under-supplied stock of blood? The IBTS’ National Medical Director, Dr. William Murphy, has acknowledged time and again that the lifetime ban against gay men is outmoded and “offensive”, but the IBTS is of the opinion that the ban (which was introduced as an emergency measure worldwide in the 1980s due to the increased incidence of HIV/AIDS among gay men) is neither unwarranted or excessive.  Dr. Conor Malone, interim honorary Chair of Gay Doctors Ireland, recently told the Irish Medical News:

The [IBTS is] still recycling information from about five years ago, which to me seems like rather than being based on evidence and science, is based on the old idea that because they have many STDs we just have to leave them out altogether because they are not trustworthy.

The transfusion service in Ireland was rocked by scandal in the 1990s when it was revealed that the safeguarding procedures used in donation screening failed to prevent the infection of recipients of blood transfusions with Hepatitis C and HIV. So, it is not hard to see why the service would be over-cautious now in its screening procedures. The IBTS, like many other transfusion services around the world, assert that since gay men caused the rapid dissemination of an infectious disease in the past, then they could do so again.  That particular decades-old point-of-view is entrenched in a time when to be gay was to be a social pariah, forced to socialise in secrecy and when safer sexual practices among gay or bisexual men were unknown and condoms were not as widely available or used. Those who subscribe to this grossly uninformed generalisation are quick to point out that this opinion is based on sexual behaviour, not sexual orientation. However, sexual behaviour alone has not been addressed on a scientifically or medically objective basis in the criteria for eligibility to donate through the IBTS. The vast majority of other potential donors who can be grouped as high risk for the same infectious diseases are not subjected to a lifetime ban outright. For example, a person who gets a tattoo or body piercing is deferred from giving blood for six months, not permanently. Some argue that although all blood is now screened for HIV, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and Syphilis, there is a “window” period of several weeks or months in which a virus may not be detectable after infection. However, many nations including Italy, Spain and New Zealand, have overturned the lifetime ban on men who have sex with men. Instead of donor elimination, they are favouring careful donor selection. The basis for this is: (1) an undetected virus doesn’t care who its host is, it will remain as undetected in a straight person as a gay person; and (2) gay or straight, it is risky sexual practices that give rise to risk of infection and, again, that is regardless of the sexual orientation of the potential donor.

Even today, the IBTS is calling out for donations in anticipation of a surge in demand on the service over the bank holiday weekend, which existing supplies will not be able to meet.  To paraphrase the IBTS’ own adage: They need blood. What’s the excuse?

Related Posts with Thumbnails

No related posts.


  • Wouldn’t it be correct to consider that homosexual men are reservoirs of infection due to chosen lifestyle?

    Relaxation of this rule is enough to investigate bloodless surgery.

    Paula said:
  • To which chosen lifestyle are you referinng, Paula? And no, it wouldn’t be correct to consider gay men to be “reservoirs of infection”.

    orange (author) said:
  • [...] post:  Ban on Gay Blood: A Restriction In Vein | gaelick AKPC_IDS += "9585,";Popularity: unranked [...]

    Ban on Gay Blood: A Restriction In Vein | gaelick | MyGaySpot said:
  • After donating a total of ten times to the Irish Blood Transfusion Service I was refused my offer to donate on the eleventh occasion. Reason: the IBTS brought in a new regulation that anybody who had worked in a subtropical country for longer than 6 months  i.e. Africa south of the Sahara, might have malarial residues in their blood. As I had been a volunteer development worker for a number of years in two African countries I was affected by the new rule. I haven’t donated for over five years and am still fit and healthy. I never got malaria.
    The IBTS will no longer take blood donations from soldiers and gardai who have served in the tropics with the UN for six months or more.
    So who do they get their donations from nowadays? Sports clubs, kung fu martial arts groups, amateur drama groups?

    Ger said:
  • If you went to college you would realize that straight men are far bigger whores than gay men …. Though not in all cases, but its true for most. There also far more lax about using a condom if he knows “she’s on the pill”.

    dermonus said:
  • @orange
    I referred to a lifestyle that has resulted in a 42% increase in detected HIV infections in gay and bisexual men.

    Give me a break and at least be honest about the downsides to your choice of lifestyle.

    And please do not donate blood.

    Paula said:
  • Agh, Paula, that comment is very frustrating.
    Aren’t we trying to show that being gay isn’t a lifestyle choice?
    And these downsides you speak of much the same as any straight couple may experience.
    As ConackJacq informed me, the levels of HIV/AIDS detections have been much the same between gay and straight men. It’s only in the past year, it seems, that the levels have increased.
    In addition, in a day and age when every blood donation is tested for Hepatitis B, C and HIV, is there a need to reject blood just because it’s come from a gay male?

    Banana2 said:
  • Oh Paula, Paula.  When did you choose the heterosexual lifestyle?

    click here said:
  • [...] Ban on Gay Blood: A Restriction In Vein | gaelick [...]

    Early Detection Of Cancer Improves Chances Of Survival said:
  • [...] Here is the original: Ban on Gay Blood: A Restriction In Vein | gaelick [...]

    Ban on Gay Blood: A Restriction In Vein | gaelick | Ireland today said:
Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Featured Articles