Ten-year gay blood ban is unjustified

A change of policy to include the HIV virus test alongside the antibody test would be safer, smarter

According to the Sunday Times (£), the government is planning to lift the blanket, lifetime ban on blood donations from men who have had oral or anal sex with men. This ban was introduced at the height of the Aids panic in the 1980s, on the grounds that gay and bisexual men are at greater risk of HIV.

The public health minister Anne Milton is reportedly planning to modify the ban. Men who have had sex with men will be no longer be barred for life, but only for ten years after the last time they had oral or anal sex. This ban will apply even if they always use a condom and even if they test HIV-negative.

A ten-year ban is too long. So is five years or even one year. These are needlessly cautious exclusion periods. Protecting the blood supply is the number-one priority but ensuring blood safety does not require such lengthy time spans during which gay and bisexual men should not donate blood.

The blood service could replace the blanket lifetime ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men with a much shorter exclusion period. It should focus on excluding donors who have engaged in risky behaviour and those whose HIV status cannot be accurately determined because of the delay between the date of infection and the date when the HIV virus and HIV antibodies manifest and become detectable in an infected person's blood.

HIV antibodies normally take a maximum of one to three months to become identifiable in lab tests. The HIV virus can take two weeks to be detected. The blood service currently tests all donated blood for HIV antibodies but not for the HIV virus. To be safe, perhaps it should do both tests on potentially risky blood donations?

Reducing the exclusion period for blood donations from gay and bisexual men should go hand-in-hand with a "Safe Blood" education campaign, targeted at the gay community, to ensure that no one donates blood if they are at risk of HIV and other blood-borne infections due to unsafe sexual behaviour.

Moreover, the questionnaire that would-be blood donors have to answer should be made more detailed for men who have had sex with men, in order to identify more accurately the degree of risk – if any – that their blood may pose.

There is, in addition, a strong case for excluding only men who have had risky sex without a condom. At the moment the blood service makes no distinction between sex with a condom and sex without one. All oral or anal sex between men – even with a rubber – is grounds for refusing a donor under the current rules. This strikes me as odd. If a condom is used correctly, it is absolute protection against the transmission and contraction of HIV. Those who use condoms every time and without breakages should not be barred from donating blood.

In contrast to the suggested ten-year ban for gay and bisexual blood donors, a six-month exclusion period would be sufficient. This would exclude male donors who have had oral or anal sex with a man without a condom in the previous six months. All men who last had unprotected sex with men more than six months ago would have their blood tested for HIV antibodies, as is the current practice.

Although the six-month exclusion period is more than twice as long as it takes HIV antibodies to appear in the blood of an infected person, this is may be justified, to err on the side of caution and to reassure the public.

The exclusion period could, however, be much shorter than six months, with certain provisos. The blood service could decide to ban only donations from men who have had unsafe, condomless oral or anal sex with a man in the past month. For men who have had unprotected oral or anal sex with a man in the preceding one to six months, the blood service could be extra-safe and do both a HIV antibody test and a HIV virus test on their blood.

Since the HIV virus shows up in blood tests within two weeks of the date of infection, the one-month total exclusion period offers a double-length margin of safety. This would guarantee that the donated blood posed no risk to recipients.

A change of policy along either of the aforementioned lines would not endanger the blood supply. With the specified safeguards, the blood donated would be safe.

The call for change is growing worldwide. The American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks and America's blood centres favour ending the lifetime ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood.

According to Dr Arthur Caplan, former chair of the US government advisory panel on blood donation: "Letting gay men give blood could help bolster the supply. At one time, long ago, the gay-blood ban may have made sense. But it no longer does."

The truth is that most gay and bisexual men do not have HIV and will never have HIV. Both the lifetime and ten-year bans are driven by homophobic, stereotypical assumptions, not by scientific facts and medical evidence. For the vast majority of men who have sex with men, their blood is safe to donate. Far from threatening patients' lives, they can and should help save lives by becoming donors.

Peter Tatchell is a human rights campaigner and the founder of the gay rights group OutRage!

Peter Tatchell is Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, which campaigns for human rights the UK and worldwide: www.PeterTatchellFoundation.org His personal biography can be viewed here: www.petertatchell.net/biography.htm

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Five things we've learned from Labour conference

The party won't split, Corbynite divisions are growing and MPs have accepted Brexit. 

Labour won't split anytime soon

For months, in anticipation of Jeremy Corbyn’s re-election, the media had speculated about the possibility of a Labour split. But the party’s conference confirmed that MPs have no intention of pursuing this course (as I had long written). They are tribally loyal to Labour and fear that a split would prove electorally ruinous under first-past-the-post. Many still expect Theresa May to hold an early general election and are focused on retaining their seats.

Rather than splitting, Corbyn’s opponents will increase their level of internal organisation in a manner reminiscent of the left’s Socialist Campaign Group. The “shadow shadow cabinet” will assert itself through backbench policy committees and, potentially, a new body (such as the proposed “2020 group”). Their aim is to promote an alternative direction for Labour and to produce the ideas and organisation that future success would depend on.

MPs do not dismiss the possibility of a split if their “hand is forced” through a wave of deselections or if the left achieves permanent control of the party. But they expect Labour to fight the next election as a united force.

Neither the Corbynites nor the rebels have ultimate control 

Corbyn’s second landslide victory confirmed the left’s dominance among the membership. He increased his winning margin and triumphed in every section. But beyond this, the left’s position is far more tenuous.

The addition of Scottish and Welsh representatives to the National Executive Committee handed Corbyn’s opponents control of Labour’s ruling body. Any hope of radically reshaping the party’s rule book has ended.

For weeks, Corbyn’s allies have spoken of their desire to remove general secretary Iain McNicol and deputy leader Tom Watson. But the former is now safe in his position, while the latter has been strengthened by his rapturously received speech.

Were Corbyn to eventually resign or be defeated, another left candidate (such as John McDonnell) would struggle to make the ballot. Nominations from 15 per cent of MPs are required but just six per cent are committed Corbynites (though selection contests and seat losses could aid their cause). It’s for this reason that allies of the leader are pushing for the threshold to be reduced to five per cent. Unless they succeed, the hard-left’s dominance is from assured. Were an alternative candidate, such as Clive Lewis or Angela Rayner, to succeed it would only be by offering themselves as a softer alternative.

Corbynite divisions are intensifying 

The divide between Corbyn’s supporters and opponents has recently monopolised attention. But the conference showed why divisions among the former should be interrogated.

Shadow defence secretary Clive Lewis, an early Corbyn backer, was enraged when his speech was amended to exclude a line announcing that Labour’s pro-Trident stance would not be reversed. Though Lewis opposes renewal, he regards unilateralism as an obstacle to unifying the party around a left economic programme. The longer Corbyn remains leader, the greater the tension between pragmatism and radicalism will become. Lewis may have alienated CND but he has improved his standing among MPs, some of whom hail him as a bridge between the hard and soft left.

Elsewhere, the briefing against McDonnell by Corbyn allies, who suggested he was an obstacle to recruiting frontbenchers, showed how tensions between their respective teams will continue.

Labour has accepted Brexit

Ninety four per cent of Labour MPs backed the Remain campaign during the EU referendum. But by a similar margin, they have accepted the Leave vote. Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, both long-standing eurosceptics, confirmed that they would not seek to prevent Brexit.

Owen Smith called for a referendum on the eventual deal during his leadership campaign. But with some exceptions, such as Angela Eagle, most of his backers have rejected the idea. Though 48 per cent of the electorate voted Remain, MPs emphasise that only 35 per cent of constituencies did. Some still fear an SNP-style surge for Ukip if Labour seeks to overturn the outcome.

The debate has moved to Britain’s future relationship with Europe, most notably the degree of free movement. For Labour, like Theresa May, Brexit means Brexit.

Corbyn will not condemn deselections 

The Labour leader could have won credit from MPs by unambiguously condemning deselection attempts. But repeatedly invited to do so, he refused. Corbyn instead defended local parties’ rights and stated that the “vast majority” of MPs had nothing to fear (a line hardly reassuring to those who do). Angela Eagle, Stella Creasy and Peter Kyle are among the rebels targeted by activists.

Corbyn can reasonably point out that the rules remain the same as under previous leaders. MPs who lose trigger ballots of their local branches face a full and open selection. But Labour’s intensified divisions mean deselection has become a far greater threat. MPs fear that Corbyn relishes the opportunity to remake the parliamentary party in his own images.  And some of the leader’s allies hope to ease the process by reviving mandatory reselection. Unless Corbyn changes his line, the issue will spark continual conflict. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.