Trigger Warning: Discussion of blood, HIV/AIDS
—
I’m quite proud to be a blood donor. I despise needles, and I can’t stand the sight of blood, but as of last year I decided I was going to go every four to five months. My blood type is O negative, which means my blood can safely be given to people of any blood type. It’s sometimes called ‘emergency blood’, as it can be used when there’s no time to find out someone’s blood type. I’m very happy to be contributing to the UK’s stocks of this valuable blood.
But every time I go, and I fill in that form in the waiting area with a cup of juice, I feel a sting of annoyance that’s worse than the prick of the donation needle. I tick the boxes to confirm that I haven’t ever had sex with a ‘man who sleeps with men’ (to my knowledge), and I reflect on the fact that there’s no way for them to verify these statements. They have to take my word for it. Which would make my blood just as risky as say, blood from ‘men who have sex with men’.
Donation centres are of course well aware of this, because they test every donation they receive before passing it on to a patient. Which really begs the question – why can’t ‘men who sleep with men’ donate blood in the UK? Especially when donation centres are crying out for new donors, and so many people are unable to donate for health reasons.
“During the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s, at-risk groups didn’t have access to the information they needed to look after themselves… but that’s coming up for nearly forty years ago.”
There was a time when it made more sense that these rules were enforced – during the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s, there was a lot of fear-mongering but very little education about HIV/AIDS, so at-risk groups didn’t have access to the information they needed to look after themselves. The epidemic, combined with the societal stigma around LGBT+ people, and gay men in particular, meant that the powers at be felt it was easier to introduce restrictions to limit the spread of HIV/AIDS.
But that’s coming up for nearly 40 years ago, and yet ‘men who sleep with men’ are still restricted when it comes to donating blood. Unless, of course, they wait at least twelve months after sex before coming to donate. While this might work for some people, it’s hardly appealing (or fair) for sexually active people who wish to donate.
The rules and regulations also fall down when you consider the binary language used when it comes to determining at-risk groups — what about trans and non-binary people? Where do they fit in? There are many different ways people have sex, and it happens between many different genders. The way we define ‘at-risk’ types of sex itself isn’t fit for use, and ignores the fact that the type of sex they refer to when they say ‘men who sleep with men’ could also refer to ‘trans women who sleep with cis or trans men’, or ‘non-binary people who sleep with other non-binary people’… or ‘cishet women who sleep with cishet men’ for that matter.
The fact that ‘men who sleep with men’ (and people who sleep with ‘men who sleep with men’) can’t donate blood seems particularly unfair considering one in five LGBTQ people (and two in five trans people) have been the victim of a hate crime in the past twelve months alone. If you look at incidents like the Orlando shooting in 2016, it’s heartbreaking that the community would have been unable to donate blood to help the victims – some of whom may have been their friends and partners. And for completely outdated restrictions.
“Unless you’re are not now, nor have ever been, sexually active, you cannot guarantee the honesty of your previous partners.”
To the best of my knowledge, I’ve never had sex with anyone in an at-risk group of HIV/AIDS or any other blood borne diseases they test against (which also includes people who have ever had sex for drugs or money, people who have had sex in part of the world where HIV/AIDS is very common, or people who have ever injected non-prescribed drugs). And although I have been screened in the past, so know I’m not carrying anything, I cannot 100% say that any of my previous sexual partners have been completely honest with me about their sexual past. Ergo, I could inadvertently be lying on that donation form. Unless you are not now, nor have ever been, sexually active, you cannot guarantee the honesty of your previous partners.
Given this, why is it not mandatory that anyone, of any gender or sexual orientation, wait twelve months after having unprotected sex before donating blood? Especially when you consider that there is a three-month period after sex when HIV/AIDS cannot be detected, so could apply to any donor with a sexual past. I understand that donation centres can’t afford to waste time and resources testing blood that is likely to be contaminated, but nowadays there isn’t a clear-cut way of saying who is an at-risk group.
Although in the past there may have been groups that had a significantly higher risk of contracting HIV/AIDS, those groups have a lot more overlap in today’s society. The restrictions on donations are in dire need of revision, taking into account the present rather than the past.
If you can donate blood, I would encourage you to sign up to be a donor at blood.co.uk. The sessions are quick, the staff are friendly, and you get a free biscuit. Although the restrictions are biased, it’s vital that those who can donate do so as often as possible!
—
Note from the writer:
This piece does not discuss the restrictions placed on anyone who has ever had sex for money, which means sex workers (who are typically much more concerned with their sexual health and safety than non-sex workers) also cannot donate. As a non-sex worker, I did not feel I had the experience or knowledge to discuss this here – but we absolutely welcome this perspective. If you have any thoughts on the topic of blood donation, please do get in touch by emailing [email protected].
Editor’s note:
This piece has been updated to highlight that the restrictions around blood donation stem from homophobia and the stigmatisation of LGBT+ people during the HIV/AIDS crisis, after it was brought to our attention that that fact wasn’t explicit enough in the original article.
