The lifetime ban on men who have had sex with men (MSM) is an issue that our party has always felt uncomfortable with. Superficially it looks little more than a discriminatory throwback to the 1980s stereotypes associated with gay men and increased risk of sexual disease.
Yesterday the Government took a significant step in changing their position by announcing the lifting of the lifetime ban on MSM from giving blood. So let me give you the detail about how that decision was reached, and what it means for men wanting to donate blood.
The previous Government had also questioned the validity of the lifetime ban, and in 2006 the then Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (MSBTO) reviewed the permanent exclusion of men who have had sex with men. That review considered that despite developments and improvements in testing and knowledge of blood borne viral infections, there was still insufficient data regarding compliance to determine the potential impact of any changes. As a result, no changes to the policy were recommended at that time.
Fast forward four years and a study, by a team at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), on the understanding of compliance with the permanent deferral contributed to a review of donor deferral periods by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO, MSBTO’s successor) completed in May 2011. SaBTO’s review also confirmed that there had been significant improvements in blood donation testing since the last review, leading to a revision of the ‘window periods’ when viral infections in donated blood are undetectable.
As a result, SaBTO have now recommended that the introduction of a 12 month deferral period for MSM was sufficient to maintain blood safety. SaBTO’s recommendation was that the 12month deferral was still required because of the nature of Hepatitis B infection, and of the screening tests used, it is necessary to allow 12 months from any higher risk behaviour as this is long enough for the donor to have undergone and recovered from an infection.
The health departments of England, Scotland and Wales have now subsequently announced that they have accepted SaBTO’s recommendation that men whose last sexual contact, anal or oral sex (with or without a condom), with another man was more than 12 months ago will now be able to donate blood. These changes will come into effect from 7 November 2011.
The Government has undeniably made progress on an issue that many in our party have worked tirelessly for many years to see changed. Some people reading this may consider the announcement to be a half measure, and will be disappointed that some MSM are still prevented from donating blood. However, they should also recognise that this decision was made on the recommendation of the independent scientific SaBTO and their expert Steering Group comprised of relevant clinical experts and stakeholders from MSM (the National Aids Trust, Gay Men Fighting AIDS, Stonewall and the Terence Higgins Trust) and patient (UK Thalassaemia Society and Sickle Cell Society) groups.
Liberal Democrats can be proud that it is this Coalition Government that has lifted the lifetime ban on MSM from donating blood. And they can rest assured this won’t be the final word on this issue. We have made progress based on current independently assessed scientific evidence. And what’s more, this Government will continue to follow where the science and the evidence takes us.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Tractor tax could cost 200,000 jobs
Measles was good business for Mr Sowerberry in Oliver Twist
Being a gracious Zoom host
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Steve Trevethan
Mike Peters
7 Comments
“Some people reading this may consider the announcement to be a half measure, and will be disappointed that some MSM are still prevented from donating blood. ”
Some MSM? Basically, any sexually active gay or bisexual man is still banned. While it is indeed progress, I think even calling it a half measure is over stating it. While it makes a great soundbite “Liberal Democrats can be proud that it is this Coalition Government that has lifted the lifetime ban on MSM from donating blood”, at a time when there is a real shortage of blood donation, sexually active gay men who practice safe sex are still banned from donating, while at the same time a hetrosexual person who has multiple partners and doesn’t use a condom are not.
Agreed – long-term gay male couples cannot give blood, but heterosexuals can give oral sex to each other without it being a problem?
Either oral sex transmits Hepatitis B or it does not.
“Liberal Democrats can be proud that it is this Coalition Government that has lifted the lifetime ban on MSM from donating blood.”
Rubbish. This is not a political decision, but a decision based on the modelling of the risk in a change in policy. As noted the previous government examined policy, but didn’t have data. So exactly what are you proud of? Discrimination has nothing to do with this. No one has a right to donate.
Paul Burstow is right to be happy about the progress that has been made. The stupidity of having a lifetime ban for MSM but only a 12-month ban for people who have had sex with someone they know is HIV positive or carrying Hepatitis B has at least been ended.
Interestingly, Sweden adopted the same rules for MSM donors that the UK government is only now introducing in April 2010. Previously the Swedish regulator had gone in the opposite direction by banning women who have had sex with MSM (!) from donating blood for life as well.
I agree with Jonathan and Andrew that the rules are still not perfect, but I think we need to remember that the rules deliberately do not take into account whether or not safe sex was practised. I imagine the reason for that is that people are likely to “remember” that they used a condom when they in fact haven’t but not so likely to forget that they had sex with someone.
Maybe the next step should be reducing the MSM restriction to anal sex only – given that there is a proven difference in transmission rates of STIs between oral and anal sex.
I am pleased that the ban has been lifted. It may not be where we would prefer it to be and may still prove discriminatory, but it is progress and we should be pleased that it has been made. Being happy with the lifting of the ban doesn’t equate to being satisfied with it as an end result. I look forward to more progress on the issue.
Anthony: “Discrimination has nothing to do with this. No one has a right to donate.”
Totally agree. It’s fundamentally silly to think of this issue as having anything to do with discrimination and equality. Decisions such as this should be made entirely on the basis of scientific evidence.
“Decisions such as this should be made entirely on the basis of scientific evidence.”
Of course it should. I presume that there’s some scientific evidence that oral sex between two men is more likely to result in transmission of Hep B than oral sex between a man and a woman?