Marie Kouppi
Blood donations save lives. It is a simple, selfless act which should be open to everyone who meets the necessary health criteria. But for decades, the LGBTQ+ community have faced discrimination when donating blood in the UK.
In 1985, at the height of the AIDS crisis, the UK implemented a blanket ban which prevented men from donating blood if they had ever had sex with another man.
The decision was made when the understanding of HIV transmission was limited and effective screening was still being developed. However, as HIV testing became more accurate, the stigma surrounding the LGBTQ+ community continued.
“Policymakers clung to outdated fears”
The AIDS crisis was often painted as a “gay disease,” reinforcing harmful stereotypes that depicted gay and bisexual men as reckless or dangerous. Instead of focusing on scientific advancements that could allow safer blood donation, policymakers clung to outdated fears.
Gradual Relaxation – But Not Equality
Over time, the rules around blood donation have eased — but not equally, nor without issue. These changes have also not occurred uniformly across the UK.
In 2011, Scotland, England and Wales introduced a deferral period which allowed gay men to donate blood if they abstained from sex for 12 months before donating. This was altered to a three-month deferral in 2017.
In 2021, a more inclusive approach was introduced across the whole of the UK. Donors are now risk-assessed based on each individual’s behaviour. This change makes it possible for gay and bisexual men to donate if they have the same partner for three months.
”While the changes have made a difference, discrimination lingers”
Since then, further revisions have been made to the risk assessment to remove a question which disproportionately affected Black donors and contradicted efforts to boost donations from Black communities.
Yet some exclusions remain. Anyone who has ever injected drugs still faces a lifetime ban, despite modern HIV tests detecting the virus within weeks. These outdated rules continue to block safe, willing donors.
While the changes have made a difference, discrimination lingers, and vital donations are still being rejected. So the question remains: have these restrictions been based on medical necessity or ingrained bias?
Precaution or Prejudice?
Defenders of the restrictions said they were necessary to ensure the safety of the blood supply. HIV, it is pointed out, has a short window period where it may not be detectable, and statistics show that gay men remain a high-risk group for HIV transmission.
However, the UK’s lingering restrictions indicate that there has been a distrust of LGBTQ+ people rather than a genuine medical concern. Until 2021, heterosexual donors were not subjected to the same level of scrutiny, even if they engaged in high-risk sexual behaviours.
“Equality is not conditional“
If safety were the genuine concern, a fully individualised risk assessment could have been introduced a long time ago, regardless of sexual orientation. Questions could have focused on actual behaviours. Behaviours like unprotected sex with multiple partners, rather than assumptions based on who someone sleeps with.
The fight against homophobic blood donation policies challenged the deep-rooted prejudices experienced by LGBTQ+ people. Ending these restrictions entirely sent a powerful message: equality is not conditional, and every donor should be judged by the same standards.
Blood saves lives. Everyone who is willing and able should be allowed to donate without discrimination.
READ NEXT:
-
BLOOD DONATION: IF YOU CAN, DO!
-
HAEMOCHROMATOSIS: WHEN BLOOD DONATION IS JUST WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED
-
THE MYTHS AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF MENOPAUSE
Featured image courtesy of Nguyễn Hiệp via Unsplash. No changes have been made to this image. Image license found here.
Marie Kouppi
Marie, the Cypriot Instagram editor of Empoword Journalism✨ Currently a teacher but silently crying about my PhD about ‘British Morals and their Impact on Societal Censorship in Arts!