Tim Farron has welcomed a review in the rules for blood donation which currently stop gay men from giving blood within a year of being sexually active.
He said:
I very much welcome the review of what I believe are the discriminatory rules on blood donation in the UK. In 2015 I cannot see why we can’t support an evidence based approach.
The current law which bars sexually active gay men is scientifically and socially outdated, deeply and unjustly stigmatising, and urgently needs to change. I hope today is the first stage in that process.
This was an issue Tim had highlighted with Pink News during the leadership election as a priority:
..we’ve got to end the gay blood ban, which is a disgrace. My pledge to you is that my first opposition day bill will be getting rid of the gay blood ban. All of these things need to be based on the science, not on prejudice.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Elvis Costello and The Attractions: Watch Your Step
West End ward surgeries today #dundeewestend
Speculation over Labour's benefit cuts
Being a good conference guest
Robin Bennett
Mike Peters
Chris Lewcock
Roderick Lynch
18 Comments
“All of these things need to be based on the science, not on prejudice.”
The ban is based on science. Farron’s opposition to it is based on identity politics.
There’s nothing that annoys me more than the abuse of the terms ‘evidence based’ and ‘scientific’ by politicians who have no idea what the expressions mean. Men who have sex with men have a higher likelihood of passing on infectious diseases. That isn’t to say that there are some heterosexual men who are more at risk because of their lifestyles than some homosexual men but to determine, on an individual donor basis, who is a low risk and can donate would require a lot more resources. If you’re serious about wanting to change the situation, then the thing to do would be to argue where those resources are going to come from and why it is an important use of taxpayers’ money. The wrong thing to do is to make up some nonsense about the current rules being prejudiced and unscientific when they are not.
What are the consequences of asking every man about their sexual history every time they donate? Would the number of men who are put off going because of the added bureaucracy be greater or less than the number of men who have sex with men who would then be able and willing to donate? Not only would the new system be more costly but it could, potentially, result in fewer donors.
The primary duty of the health service is the safety of patients, ( some of whom will be gay men). What is the evidence regarding the transmission of HIV and other transmittable infections?
I am the recipient of a transplant. It was third time lucky – two previous organs had been rejected by the transplant team for what were termed ‘life style’ reasons.
The scientific balance of evidence should always be for the benefit of the recipient whether it be organs or blood. Any future change should be based on rigorous scientific evidence alone and not on any form of identity politics..
Recipients have rights too in blood transfusions.
@Jayne Mansfield
This article should answer your question:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/why-cant-gay-men-donate-blood-10426364.html
What I find offensive about Farron’s comments is that he has libelled the health professionals whose decision was based entirely on scientific evidence and was made without prejudice. It is his own opinions are based on an absence of any scientific evidence and reasoning. I don’t doubt Farron’s honesty or integrity – he seems a decent chap – but he’s arrived at the wrong conclusion through flawed logic.
It is completely wrong to accuse Tim of being tokenistic or putting patients at risk. The current rules are discriminatory and limit the supply of the universal blood group O negative because some O negative women are prevented from donating purely because of the behaviour of a third party.
It is interesting that so little heed is paid to CJD risk or Group B Strep risk – both killers.
@Ruth Bright
“The current rules are discriminatory”
Yes, they are discriminatory. They are discriminatory on the basis of science. That’s exactly how it should be. The rules also discriminate to prevent patients receiving blood from people who have had serious illnesses, major surgery, complicated dental work, are taking antibiotics, are pregnant, have had acupuncture, or have had a tattoo or semi-permanent make up. There is a reason for this – it’s because people who know what they’re talking about looked at the evidence and came up with the rules based on the interests of patients. Blood donation discrimination should not be based on an avoidance of upsetting some potential donors.
I am a gay man and I do not support Tim’s stance on this. Gay men are far more likely to have HIV than the heterosexual population, this is a fact not an opinion, and the rate of new infections has been accelerating among gay men recently. It is not discriminatory to have more stringent tests placed against us to protect those receiving blood transfusions. HIV has an incubation period where it is present but undetectable and the 12 months was put in place to mitigate the chances of contaminated blood entering circulation, it is a reasonable policy.
Steve – what about HIV negative women being unable to donate highly versatile and useful O negative blood because of something totally irrelevant their partner did? Where is the science in that?
This appears to be a question of human rights – something Liberals (quite rightly) obsess on.
Well, as a transplant recipient, I reckon my human rights (and my family’s human rights) – as well as our peace of mind – is a sight higher than the people lobbying for this change. Surely Tim has more important fish to fry at the moment.
Are there other groups imagined to have higher HIV infection rates than the general population, and if so, is there a blanket ban on them donating blood? If not, then the ban is as discriminatory as it is in reality unworkable ! The answer is investing in better screening of all donations, for all known potential contaminants, and anonymously, should the donor wish.
@ johnmc “Are there other groups imagined to have higher HIV infection rates than the general population, and if so, is there a blanket ban on them donating blood?”
Yes, and the same applies to live donor organs.
“Are there other groups imagined to have higher HIV infection rates than the general population”
There’s nothing imagined about it. What the scientists have done here is use something known as evidence – i.e. observations about infection rates – and used these in statistical models to predict groups that are at higher risk of passing on certain infectious diseases. Lots of different groups of people are banned from donating blood, not just men that have had sexual contact with another man in the last 12 months. The alternative to having a blanket ban on men who have had sexual encounters with other men in the last 12 months is to interview every man about intimate details of their sex lives every time they turn up to donate. This will be much more costly and risks putting off more men than would turn up because the ban has been removed.
@ jonnymc,
I believe that the Terence Higgins Trust participated in the drawing up of the 2011 guidelines, which were changed from a life time ban on gay men donating blood to criteria that depends on behaviour i.e. a deferral period of one year (as referred to by James ), to cover the ‘window period’ when, after risky behaviour, the virus is not detectable in screening tests ( A life time ban is still in place in Northern Ireland). In the rest of the UK, the criteria are not discriminatory, they focus on behaviour not sexual orientation.
The Trust is calling for a review because of the fall in blood donations, and this includes a review of other groups who are currently deemed to be at higher risk of carrying a blood borne infection.
I turned up to give blood as usual on one occasion to be told that I couldn’t participate. The reason being that they had realised that the malaria testing that they had been doing wasn’t good enough any more (I was born in the Far East and had visited other at risk countries).
In all my 50+ years, I’ve never had the slightest hint of malaria, however to me it seems obvious that the health of the recipient must always come first so I understand why they didn’t want my blood.
I totally agree with Steve, if the evidence still says that taking blood from this group would create an adverse risk to recipients, then there should be a ban.
Young otherwise healthy healthy people who have tattoos should be added to the debate.
Of mice and men. I am not a doctor, but recent research shows that blood donations from young to old helps with the ageing process and blood donations from old to young is adverse to the recipients.
The political problem is caused by blood being pooled, which is an administrative decision. Provide an opt-out and some of the alleged discrimination goes away. Suppose a gay man wants to make a blood donation to his twin brother and the brother needs the blood. Should it be refused for administrative reasons? or cost reasons? or reasons such as ‘That is what we usually do’.?
All that counts is the medical evidence of the best experts in the field – and the protection of patients. Any other considerations are surely not relevant.
@ Judy Abel,
No they re not, which is why I fail to understand quite what Tim is saying because it does not seem to accord with what the experts say, and what has accepted by the Terence Higgins trust as non discriminatory criteria.
The reasons why some cannot give blood, or blood donation is deferred is based on expert evidence. There is no harm in a review of the evidence , but I would be surprised if there has been any substantial change since 2011. A shortage of blood is no reason to change to criteria which carries higher risk for the recipient.
@ Richard Underhill,
The donation of blood from a relative or friend is ‘discouraged’ ( so called directed donation), for medical reasons irrespective of whether one is gay.
I am 70 years old, do you fancy being spliced to me so that we become conjoined twins to test the ageing/ anti ageing experiment? I suspect that potentially , I have more to gain!