Blood Donation Policies Against Gay and Bisexual Men: Homophobia or Security?
By: Paul Perriard
In a majority of countries, the early 80’s marked the beginning of a change regarding the blood donation policy: men who have or had sex with men (MSM) cannot donate their blood anymore, due to the HIV crisis. The MSM population being more likely to be contaminated with HIV, they are no longer authorized to give their blood in order to preserve the patients’ health.
Almost 40 years have passed since the HIV crisis, and even if the laws are more flexible, MSM still do not have the same rights as straight people to donate their blood.
Fifteen countries allow MSM to donate blood. For the others, different options are suggested: either MSM are free to donate their blood after a time of abstinence predefined by the Government (usually one year, but can last from three months to five years), either they are strictly forbidden to donate blood.
The reason why MSM are not authorized to donate blood is mostly to avoid blood contamination, since MSM are considered as a risky population. Indeed, some studies have shown that gay and bisexual men are more likely to contract HIV than straight boys, and girls. But now that mentalities and technology have evolved, LGBT associations start to protest against these policies.
MSM and LGBT associations accuse policies towards blood donation of discrimination. As all the donated blood is tested to make sure it is not contaminated, it is hard to understand why gay and bisexual men cannot donate blood too. With the progress of technology, we can detect any type of STDs a few days after the contamination, so an abstinence of one year seems completely disproportionate.
By refusing MSM’s blood, it shows that we throw every single gay and bisexual man in the same pot. Instead of taking precautions with risky people, straight or gays, we prefer to ban a whole community considered as a “risky population” engaged in “risky practices” that consequently should be treated differently.
While MSM claim for their rights, hospitals are in desperate need of blood all around the world. A lot of campaigns are launched to push people to donate blood and thus fill the serious lack of blood, while the solution is right in front of us. There are millions of MSM in the world, and allowing them to donate blood would certainly decrease the shortage of blood, and be a proof of equality.
If some countries wait to see the evolution of contaminated blood in countries that already allowed MSM to give their blood, associations like Homodonneur confirm that nothing proves that the percentage of contaminated blood has increased in these countries.
These policies are controversial and lead us to some ethical questions:
What should MSM do? They can either lie about their identity, disrespect the law and save lives by reducing the shortage of blood. Or being true to themselves, and refusing to give their blood as long as the law does not respect their rights, but leaving the hospitals in desperate need of blood.
Also, what does the temporary deferral policy really mean? While politics say that it is a social progress and a first step towards equality, LGBT associations say that these policies will not change anything, as no one will stop having sex for months to donate blood, and that politics used this policy as a sign of equality while it is in fact another proof of discrimination.
