A BLOODY MESS :: Long an advocate against the infinite ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men, Jennifer Breakspear returns from Ottawa, where she participated in consultations about creating change.
I came out in 1983. If you are not aware of the import of the date you were probably not out then yourself. We were one year into full blown panic as our gorgeous gay friends started to succumb to an unknown terror. AIDS was killing our community. Also in 1983 the Canadian Red Cross (and later the Canadian Blood Services) banned blood donations from gay men. This ban served to ‘sterilize’ the blood supply, but it also set in place an institutionalised stigma that, almost 30 years later, ostracizes an entire population. Gay men are not allowed to give the gift of life in Canada. In fact, any man who has had sex with another man, even once, since 1977 (and responds truthfully when asked by Canadian Blood Services) is refused. This infinite deferral policy flies in the face of all medical research about the science of blood transfusion and disregards the immense strides taken in blood testing technology.
Many have called for an end to this policy. The Canadian Aids Society and the Canadian Federation of Students have run countless campaigns advocating for change. EGALE joined in a lawsuit challenging the legality of the ban under the Charter. And many queer community leaders and commentators, including myself, have spoken out repeatedly in the media about the blatant homophobia of the policy.
Last fall the presiding judge in the well-documented Freeman case ruled that the ban is not discriminatory (a ruling that will surely be challenged in successive cases), however, she also found that there is no evidence to support it. Shortly after the ruling, the Canadian Blood Services’ Board of Directors passed a motion calling for a proposal to reduce the current infinite deferral period to one of not less than 5 years and not more than 10 year years.
Interestingly, it is not up to CBS to set the policy. Canadian Blood Services must submit a proposal for a policy change to Health Canada who then approves, or refuses, the change. Many countries have already changed their policies. Britain, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Japan have all lifted their bans on donations from gay men.
I have done dozens of interviews, talk radio shows and speeches against the infinite ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men. It is clear to me that the ban is discriminatory in its effect. While it may have been borne of good intentions, it has reinforced a societal view that gay men are less than, unclean, unsafe, and unworthy. I have long maintained that Canadian Blood Services should, when screening donors, focus on risk not identity. The issue is not who you sleep with, it is what you do. Blood from someone who engages in unsafe or risky behaviour should not be permitted into the blood supply. But the mere fact that one has sex with men does not necessarily equate with risky behaviour. Identity does not threaten the safety of the blood supply; behaviour might.
It’s easy, when talking for so long about something, to feel like you are yelling into the wind. But apparently someone was listening. Seemingly out of nowhere I was invited to Ottawa to participate in consultations about the deferral period. I joined a number of others in a passionate exchange of ideas. Medical experts briefed us on the current state of blood testing (very impressive, did you know that since the current practice of screening every blood donation began there has not been one case of HIV transmission through the blood supply in Canada?) and answered our many questions about research on detecting blood borne pathogens. We were asked to discuss various deferral options. It was clear early on that this matter was not going to be resolved in one day. In fact CBS will be reconvening these consultations over the next few months. The overarching sentiment was opposition to a five to ten year deferral period. We stood with the overwhelming scientific research that indicates that a one year deferral period is more than adequate to eliminate risk to the blood supply. Behaviour based criteria are our preferred standard but, if we cannot get there right away (much education and collaboration with concerned stakeholders is necessary to make behaviour based criteria palatable), we must shorten the deferral period significantly immediately.
Policies that perpetuate discrimination do harm to all in the discriminated group. Policies borne of fear that are not supported by evidence and data cannot be supported. It is time for Canadian Blood Services to take a leadership role in the science and service of blood donations. Stand up for the safety of the testing process and accept blood from prospective donors who have not engaged in behaviours that are known to be risky, whether those behaviours are unprotected sex, travelling in malaria risk areas or petting a cow in England.
