The blood donor ban that puts us at risk

WE NEED 6,000 blood donations every day to meet demand, yet in the past ten years there has been a 40 per cent drop in the number of new donors.

Despite this, gay men are excluded from giving blood unless they abstain from sex for 12 months, because of the apparent risk of HIV.

All blood is screened for bloodborne viruses, but there is a brief window when testing cannot detect infection. It represents a minuscule risk, but even one infection must clearly be avoided at all costs.

But the ban on gay men is based on a stereotype and, far from protecting the public, it actually puts us at risk. This is because, while it unfairly assumes all gay men are promiscuous, it assumes straight men are not, so the latter can have unprotected sex with as many women as they want and still give blood.

Let’s be clear: this is not about gay rights. Donating blood is a civil duty, not a human right. The blood services’ responsibility lies first and foremost with those who receive blood products, and safety is paramount.

Yet France, Italy, Spain, Poland, South Africa, Russia and Australia have all lifted such a ban on gay people and seen no change in contamination rates.

In Italy, which differentiates between donors on the basis of risk activity, rather than sweeping categories such as sexuality, the number of HIV infections through blood transfusion was cut by two thirds.

Seen in this way, it is the UK blood service that is being reckless and irresponsible.