November 30th, 2005
Are the IBTS homophobic?
Fiona over at Mental Meanderings has posted a interesting piece about whether an IBTS policy of refusing blood from gay men is homophobic. Fiona thinks that it is and while I myself have issues with their policy, I don’t think the IBTS are intrinsically homophobic. My experience of the organisation has been largely positive but I think it is erroneous to assess the suitability of gay blood donors in the same way as people who are excluded from donating for medical reasons. As long as people are healthy, and willing to donate, they should be allowed to, regardless of their sexuality.
It’s a real shame that in the last week, RTE news broadcasts have carried blood donation appeals several times as there is always a critical shortage of blood (and platelets) over Christmas. I’ve blogged before about the altruism of donating blood and it does annoy me that the policy is exclusive when it comes to gay people. It also doesn’t make any sense to exclude a huge of the population at a time of blood scarcity.
November 30th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
You have spent 1 year or more, in total, in the UK in the years 1980 to 1996
Rules out Northerners like me, too.
November 30th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
Do not give blood for 2 months after:
You have visited the United States of America, Canada, Cuba, Mexico or Israel, because of the possibility of onward transmission of West Nile Virus via blood transfusion
That rules out all those jet-setters who do their Christmas shopping in New York, too.
November 30th, 2005 at 7:48 pm
Northerners are ruled out completely from giving blood. So I recently gave blood up in Belfast while home having tried in Dublin, an experience I would like to forget.
I took time off from work that was due to me one afternoon, went into the centre in town, gave my name and sat down with the others who were waiting to give blood.
The woman who took my name went and consulted with someone and then I was called out of the waiting people and brought into a side room where I was explained to you, very nicely, that because I come from the north that I couldnt donate.
Jaysus did I feel like I had something infectious (other than my wonderful Belfast accent and great laugh of course).
Surely that rule stops a wealth of people from giving blood. And whats the difference between spending a week, weekend, a year or coming from the north with blood donations. So in reality I am sure a significant number of people who do donate blood would not be able to do so if the rules were followed in a logical manner.
I was told in the IBTS that the northern ban stems from VJD and while I understand the method of the madness, the method is highly illogical, for the reasons I said before.
But in saying go give blood, someone needs it!
December 1st, 2005 at 11:02 am
You see this is one of the problems - while the other bans have what appear to be logical medical justifications the gay ban doesn’t: it’s based in stupid illogical homophobic fear. And what can we do? Normally I’d said people should boycott something but…and this is a big but….isn’t it immoral to ask people to not give blood because of this??
December 1st, 2005 at 12:09 pm
They’re very homophobic actually and the way they engage with the gay community is disgusting. I was at a debate last year where a woman from the IBTS started her talk on the blood ban by showing how gay men are riddled in STDs. She quoted all the various types of STDs gay men can get and how STDs are higher in the gay community than in the heterosexual community. This is not how you engage with a community. A doctor in the audience told the gays in the audience how she has gay friends and she knows we all sleep around and so “until you people start behaving properly you shouldn’t be allowed to give blood”.
Also, one of their excuses for not allowing gay men is that they were the first to get HIV and so they might be the first to get a new and yet to be discovered virus that could damage the blood supply. Wasn’t there a UN convention that children would not get tried for the sins of their father?
I’ll dig out a long essay type thing I have at home where I broke down all the statements from the IBTS and showed their homophobic nature. There’s a complaint being lodged to the Equality Tribunal soon over the IBTS policies.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Damien - thanks for that, I’m actually going to follow this up with a contact I have in the IBTS. Please keep me posted on that Equality Tribunal case, I’d be very interested to hear the outcome.
Red Mum - You would also be exempt because you’ve had a child!
Hugh - The criteria for ineligibility is strange, but it does seem that there is something more sinister going on with the exclusion of gay men donating blood
Fiona - it’s certainly starting to look as if this is a homophobic policy. Boycotting, though effective in other matters, would ultimately harm cancer patients, new born babies, accident victims etc.
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:37 am
I hope I’m not setting myself up as a homophobe here - I’d hate to use the “I have friends who are gay” defence but…
If the IBTS were institutionally homophobic then wouldn’t lesbians be excluded too?
All blood donations are screened for viral loads. These are not quick tests. At a guess, and it’s only my guess, the arbitrary blanket bans are purely logistical and economic (basically give the testers less testing to have to do by cherry picking sub-populations less likely to have individuals with a viral loading). It might be insensitive but cold statistics probably exist to defend the current blanket ban policy.
The IBTS will pretty much reject anybody who has any remote possibility of a viral loading in the blood (not just stds - all viral infections) hence the strange list. Remember that there are no cures for viral infections (anti-virals merely suppress the viral load) - either your body fights it off and develops immunity or you’re infected until the day you die. After the initial statistical screening, anybody else found to have a viral loading is barred from giving blood too.
The argument to be had is whether it is worth the extra expense and effort to accept universal donations in order to avoid anybody or any group of people feeling stigmatised or discriminated against. I would say yes, actually, but I’d hate to think the resulting logistics affected the supply of blood to the people who actually matter in this case.
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:37 am
Dealga: The viral tests are fairly quick and accurate these days. There is still however a ten day window from exposure to detection by these tests, so if you give blood less than ten days after contracting HIV it might not get detected.
They don’t ban heterosexuals who haven’t had unprotected sex in the last 10 days. A guy who has had oral sex gets banned for life though.
I think the issue is with the lifetime ban when they almost admit themselves that the ban can be reduced since the ban is a 20 year old policy that came from the panic days when they didn’t know anything about HIV.
I have a nice long rant about it here:
http://www.mulley.net/2005/12/01/yes-the-ibts-are-being-homophobic/
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:37 am
I was an active blood donor, and earned a little badge for my efforts, but was disappointed a few years ago when the IBTS made a decision to refuse blood from anybody who has worked in a tropical malarial country for 6 months or more. Apparently there is no technology for testing for malarial residues in the blood of us old Africa hands. This means all Gardai and Army volunteers with UN peacekeeping operations, along with aid workers and missionaries, are excluded from contributing to the Irish hospital blood bank. I got my TD to ask the Minister for a written reply in the Dail, but got no joy from his reply. And I’ve never had any bloody malaria or anything.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:13 am
I’m not any shape of expert, and I’m more than willing to be corrected, but my experience of biochemistry and microbiology tells me that blood viralscreening is a) not quick, as Damien says and b) flawed, as a ‘none-detected’ result does not equate to ‘0 viral load’. In analytical chemistry ‘none-detected’ is never deduced to be ‘zero’. That’s not a justification for anything, by the way…
December 7th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Here’s what they actually say: don’t give blood if “You are a male who has ever had anal or oral sex with another male, even if a condom or other form of protection was used “. This is fair enough since anal sex particularly is a great way to spread blood borne diseases. I’d accept that if they also said don’t give blood if you are a female who has engaged in anal sex since presumably the same risks apply.
I was also outraged when they refused by husband cos he lived in Northern Ireland. Years ago they refused me because I was too small (weighed under 8 stone). I’ve had babies, an endoscopy, acupuncture - you name it - so am out on all counts! And I’d love to give blood. And I have a pretty rare blood type so I’d say they need it, A-. Desperate when your philanthropy is rejected!