Giving Blood May Get Slightly Less Impossible for Gays in New Zealand

Image by B. Bollard

While New Zealand made worldwide news last year for legalising gay marriage, blood donation is one facet of life where homosexual people are handed a different set of rules. Since 2009 men who have sex with other men have had to abstain from doing so for five years before being legally permitted to give blood—regardless of whether or not they use condoms. This month the New Zealand Blood Service accepted recommendations in a report from an independent review, which suggest the donor deferral period be cut to 12 months for an abstinent gay man, in line with policies in Australia.

Blood is in short supply, so why restrict donors based on sexual activity? Well statistically, men who have sex with men are the population group at highest risk of contracting HIV. With that in mind, 2000 people carry HIV in New Zealand and the chances of catching HIV via transfusion are estimated to be one in 1,000,000. And besides, all donated blood is tested for the disease.

So while the proposed changes can be seen as a relaxation of said laws, it still means that non-abstinent gay or bisexual men are pretty much barred from giving blood—no matter what the circumstance—for reasons that aren’t completely cut and dry. Which is awkward if there’s a blood drive at the office, and upsetting if someone close to you is in need.

One person who says the decision to retain a stand-down period is prejudiced and politically motivated is Tony Reed from Rainbow Wellington. The group have an open case with the Human Rights Commission about the Blood Service’s restrictions, and he knows of men who flout the rules to donate their vital fluid. We spoke to Tony to learn more about the situation.

VICE: Tony, what were your first thoughts when you heard the new blood donation recommendations?
Tony Reed: Well, we were disappointed but not surprised.

What did you find disappointing?
That the Blood Service are continuing to insist on a blanket ban, basically, for all men who have sex with men, despite the fact it is now pretty clear that most of the blood that sexually active gay men donate is quite safe and there’s no real risk.

The stand-down time has been decreased by four years to 12 months. Isn’t that a step in the right direction?
Well it’s in the right direction, but the Blood Service needs a change of culture. I mean, if in another five years they come back and say, “we are now reducing it to six months” it would just be frustrating, because we don’t believe a blanket ban is necessary anymore and we think it is basically discrimination. In practice, you are not supposed to have sex for a year, and how many people would willingly go without sex for a year to do something. It’s quite a long time.

Do you think the decision is based in homophobia?
Really, everything goes back to the 1980s when very little was known about AIDS, so lifetime bans were put on, which is still in operation in the United States and were only lifted recently in the UK. The bans were put on, because of a lack of knowledge basically, and of course medical knowledge around this subject has increased considerably. But the political situation means that the Blood Service have to tread carefully, so they have gradually lowered the deferral time.  If you look at the report, it talks about the problem of oral sex, because they admit that it is not very high risk, especially with a condom. They go on to say, “hence the epidemiological evidence suggests it is possible that men who have only had oral sex have a similar risk of transmission of HIV as heterosexuals who are not deferred”. And then it goes on to say they are still recommend banning it for a number of reasons, and the last one is the “conservative nature of Blood Service activities”. Well, that’s  not a medical or scientific reason, that is a political reason.

What do you think they mean by “conservative nature”?
They mean that the medical professional is very conservative and treads delicately. Fifty years ago the medical profession agreed that homosexuals were sick and that we needed to be cured. And now if anybody says that they are considered to be, quite rightly, somebody who is not putting medical evidence first, but is putting their own political or religious views first. So there you have an example of where the medical profession was following the perceived wisdom of the age and then gradually changing, and that is the sort of thing they mean by conservative. And we were just amazed that they actually put that in. To us it seems to let the cat out of the bag.

There will be gay men who are in long-term monogamous relationships but banned from donating blood… what are your thoughts on that?
We know gay men do donate blood. I’ve been told there are a number of gay men in those sort of circumstances who have decided it is safe for them to give blood. So basically they go along, they don’t say anything and they give blood and there doesn’t appear to be any problems. It’s just a shame that they have to lie to do it.

Have you given blood?
I can’t give blood because I’m too old, and also I lived in the UK for many years. That’s another interesting example of how the Blood Service stick to easy blanket bans without taking personal individuals into account, because there are a lot of English vegetarians here who are outraged that they can’t give blood because of the BFE [Mad Cow] beef scare, and of course they have never eaten a cow in their lives.

Do you know gay men who have been discouraged from giving blood?
Well, of course, one major thing is that in New Zealand it’s considered a civic duty and we know of people who have gone to give blood, without realising they can’t, and then being surprised at the reaction. And then being embarrassed.

What are the wider implications for the gay community when there are rule divisions like this?
When homosexual law reform happened nearly 30 years ago, that began the process whereby gay and lesbian people could start to become full citizens, and fully participate in New Zealand life without having to hide who they were. And that’s probably the most important development and that’s where marriage equality sits in very strongly. So although the Blood Service fall over themselves to say they are not discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation, in practice that’s what it ends up as, by continuing to have a blanket ban, so it is something which is a block in that road of progressing to full citizenship.

So what are Rainbow Wellington suggesting as a better way forward?
We want risks to be assessed individually. Some stand-down periods will obviously be required, but these will depend on individual risks.

And this is similar to what is being suggested by the American Medical Association, where there is a lifetime ban on gay men donating blood?
Yes, the American Medical Association came out last year, after they changed their policies to push for deferral based on individual risks rather than mass group risks. We were very surprised given the publicity that was engendered at the time, that the NZBS review board hadn’t even heard about this, which made us doubt the depths to which they were digging. They sort of answered this in the final report, but to us they underlines the fact that it’s not just a few rapid gay rights groups which are pushing for this, but also very respected professional medical organisations like the AMA. So we hope the real shift will come next time.

The New Zealand Blood Service anticipates having the changes in place early next year pending approval from Medsafe.

@danielle_street