Breaking Down the Blood Ban
UK’s New Donation Restrictions Are Ass-Backwards
__900_598_90.jpg)
On Thursday the United Kingdom’s Health Department announced that as of November, gay men will be allowed to give blood—if they refrain from any form of sexual contact for an entire year. Despite being deemed as progressive, this newly established concession is actually more ignorant than it is groundbreaking.
In light of the UK’s new stance, Canada is seeking to reconsider its own position—as it is currently one of many countries that forbid gay men from donating blood at all.
It’s great that Canada is trying to be “progressive” and “tolerant,” but hopefully our country can realize that the UK’s recent announcement is neither of the above. To the contrary, this “lightened” ban is actually more of a colossal slap in the face than a step in the right direction.
“Blood donation eligibility criteria should be based on individual behavior, backed by advanced screening, not on sexuality,” wrote Nursing Times reporter Steve Ford.
Although it is crucial that blood agencies follow strict protocol that requires their donors to be tested for any medical, sexual or drug-related blips—they shouldn’t assume that HIV is exclusively a homosexual disease.
Best Health Magazine recently reported that in a 2010 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal the Jewish General’s Mark Wainberg argued that the ban is illegitimate. He wrote that “the risk of a false negative on an HIV test has been nearly eliminated since Canada’s blood system began using a highly sensitive nucleic acid test to screen blood.”
With that said, this “12-month rule” suggested by the UK is absolutely ludicrous and unnecessary. If health systems are able to thoroughly screen blood, why must gay men kiss their libidos goodbye for an entire year? Better yet, with the technological advances the world has seen, why hasn’t this ban been abolished sooner?
The only real reason for these full or partial bans must be called what it is—flagrant discrimination.
Partially lifting the ban in the United Kingdom just isn’t good enough. The gay community is asking for complete equality—and they deserve it. It is nonsensical to stereotype a group based on sexual orientation, depriving them of the fundamental right to donate clean blood.
All I have to say is shame on the UK Health Department. They shouldn’t be patting themselves on the back; what they’ve done wasn’t progressive, it was discriminatory. If they want to earn their kudos, they should abolish the ban, use the technology available to effectively screen blood and stop hiding behind dated stereotypes. As for Canada, we should learn from the mistakes made across the pond, and make a change that actually moves us forward.
