Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
“WHEN CAN I donate again?”
That was my first question after I decided with my legal team to drop my High Court challenge against the Irish Blood Transfusion Aervice and the Minister for Health last month.
From the moment I began donating blood, I never thought I’d stop. I was sure none of the various restrictions would apply to me. I hadn’t lived in the UK and never intended to be an IV drug user or a sex worker. I was 18 years old and never imagined being an openly gay man either.
Life changed. I had a boyfriend. I loved him, and we were intimate, but only to an extent. Being a blood donor was part of my identity, and I didn’t want to sacrifice that or lie on the blood donor questionnaires. Throughout my time donating blood I abstained from anal or oral sex, just to allow me to contribute to what I believed was my civic responsibility.
Later when the Irish Blood Transfusion Service put me on a two-month ban from donating simply because of an anonymous tip-off, I realised a man didn’t have to have sex with another man to face problems donating blood. All a man had to do was identify openly as gay and he would automatically be viewed as a problem, whether he had broken the rules or not.
Ban
To me, the status quo appeared completely unscientific and indefensible. I wrote to politicians, the blood service and anyone who would listen. I organised a petition at a donor clinic in my university, but it was ignored. Nothing was working.
The day of my last attempt to donate blood came three days before Ireland voted ‘yes’ in the Marriage Equality referendum. It was a weird coincidence in timing. As I sat in the reception of the D’Olier Street clinic, Dublin, my hand trembled.
I was looking at the green form, looking at that box asking me if I had ever had oral or anal sex with another man. I heard a voice in my head telling me: “Don’t tick it. Get up, hand the form back and leave. Don’t tick that box.” I knew once that box was ticked there would be no going back, I’d probably be banned for life from donating blood. I eventually ticked it and began a ripple that would last over a year.
I waited weeks for the blood service to confirm the ban in writing. I made calls, sent an email, left messages but no one could or would tell me when I could expect the official letter I had been told I’d receive. Eventually, I got through to someone who could answer my questions and was told there would be no letter, no official confirmation – I was banned the day I went to the clinic, and that was the end of it as far as the service was concerned. There would be no detailed explanation. A stern voice just told me: “You know why you were deferred.”
Court case
A month later I was sitting at the back of a room in the Four Courts, praying and willing myself not to be there. After I had run out of options, it was the only road that remained if I ever wanted to donate blood again. For a few months, I discussed the idea of a potential legal challenge with a small team of human rights lawyers.
I was prepared and thought I knew what to expect beforehand, but it was incredibly different sitting through it. My sex life was being aired in a room full of strangers, and I could see some of the black-robed figures leaning in to hear all the details. It was a unique case so of course lawyers would be intrigued by it, but that didn’t make the situation any less uncomfortable.
Before that day in court, I had never really been tongue-tied when an issue I cared about came up for discussion. However that day, outside the courtroom as a court reporter stood taking notes, I found myself struggling to say anything coherent. After all the preparations and hard work to bring it to that point, what I wanted most at that moment was to hide in a corner of some café with my closest friends, where it would be safe and comfortable.
Instead, in a matter of days, I became an object of public discussion, with complete strangers deciding whether I was a front for some gay lobby group in the US. They openly debated what sort of sex I had, how many men I’d slept with in my life, what infections I was carrying around, how much money I hoped to get from the case.
Most of my family stood by me throughout the case, even those I didn’t expect to. My sister was the exception. She was livid at what was happening and didn’t hide it very well.
Change
In the end, I didn’t win my case, but I didn’t lose it either. The State made some of the moves our case had argued for. After several adjournments to allow the State to prepare and carry out the necessary changes, the Minister for Health announced a reduction in the ban in June this year from a lifelong ban to a 12-month ban.
I’d be a liar if I said the new policy change was perfect. Having low-risk, protected sex with another man is still labelled as being more dangerous to the national blood system than getting several needles jabbed into my skin while getting a tattoo. Of course, that doesn’t make a lot of sense but the State took a big step forward in the space of a year and to have played a significant part in that is meaningful.
What matters most to me now is getting back to a donor clinic and finally giving my 11th blood donation after a three-year delay.
Tomás Heneghan is a journalist, University of Limerick graduate and campaigner for LGBTQ and reproductive rights.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The problem with gay men donating blood is that the test for HIV may not turn positive until weeks after exposure. Sterilization will not get rid of it. It’s not about the donor’s “identity,” it’s about the recipient’s safety.
Oh except around 90% of people in the west know their hiv status, people who give blood are statistically far more altruistic than the average person (so therefore are unlikely to lie when giving blood) and HIV can be detected after about a week in the vast majority (98%) and at the latest within 3 months maximum but this is categorically rare. So, if 3 months is the absolute latest (but this is still unnecessary, Italy have no ban with no increased cases) why is there a year waiting period? Either allow gay blood bans are don’t. A year is arbitrary.
So, does this only apply to gay men’s blood that’s infected with HIV, or would the same thing apply to heterosexual men, who are infected with HIV?
And only gay men have HIV! Ffs,the blood is either checked properly for everyone or not. If not then it follows that a game of Russian roulette is being played with every donation. Many bisexuals may have passed HIV unknowingly to their partners who may donate,gay men who do not declare might be donating etc. etc. Blood donations are either being properly checked ,or not,simple as.
Admiral you are partly correct: it is estimated that window period positivity (ie infected donation in the undetectable period) with PCR which is highly sensitive is approximately 1-10 per 10000 donors in the higher risk groups: that includes those with multiple sexual partners, prostitutes, drug users and also men who have sex with men (MSM) ie 1-10 out of 10000 donations would test negative but still contain HIV. The only job for those running blood transfusion services world wide is to decide what is the acceptable transmission rate for viruses (currently it is approximately 1 transmission of HIV per 1.5 million units of blood) and how that would change if the donation guidelines are changed. Obviously the length of time that has passed since the last high risk period will influence the success rate for testing.
Italy have lifted this ban and there have been no increases in HIV incidences. Seriously, are you a doctor or something?
Yes.
No, the other guy.
im the king of medicine
Also yes and frequently administer blood. Statistical modelling estimates a small increase in the window period transmission by complete liberalization. Again, blood transfusion boards should decide what is the acceptable transmission rate and how to achieve that. If a 3 month abstinence period or one month or no abstinence period for MSM donors will result in a transmission rate within the acceptable range then that’s how the guidelines should be created. Guidelines should not discriminate based on sexuality, they should be based on what will achieve appropriate transmission rates. Complete liberalization definitely is supposed to increase transmission rates however the effect is small and it depends on what the estimated increase in transmission rate will be. No unit of blood is ever completely safe.
I knew it! Go on Titus. Anyway, yeah so there’s a paper from Oxford about the ban starting in 2001. There just hasn’t been an increase and I sincerely doubt Italy would be better equipped to handle this type of thing compared to the US and UK so there’s also that. To be fair you’ve changed your tune since the last day but I’m going to put that down to a bad day what with DNAse being added to PCRs and whatnot. Be honest, you just liked saying DNAse, didn’t you? It’s OK. I feel the same.
Of course DNAse doesn’t go in a PCR thermocycler, where did you get your degree, by post? Certainly didn’t put it in my epis when genotyping.
You said you put DNAse and buffer in a PCR in one of your comments. Actually, I went to TCD and came near but not top of, my class and then I got an international scholarship to the UK (very prestigious and generous, incase you were wondering) where I had my PhD by 25. Since you brought it there. Graduated with glowing references and manages to fit a diploma in statistics on too all with MS.
Oh so you are the science equivalent of the grammar police? So if I mistakenly place a step from dna isolation in the pcr chain instead you need to remember that eternally? My students and techs do my PCR now. And you just make yourself sound like an idiot by throwing your credentials around. It’s not a job interview, it’s the journal lol.
DNAse in a PCR is less being the grammar police more, obliterating the language out of existence. It’s literally the opposite of the function of a PCR. And… you use DNAse to isolate DNA, do you? Well that’s one I haven’t heard. I have to do PCR and design the oligonucleotides for PCR based assays and plasmid construction so it’s not as if I’m doing this for basic diagnostics. It’s fundamental research. Well you’re only too happy to throw around your opinion in your perpetual aggravation. You can’t even take a joke or white flag.
Titus don’t give it if you can’t take it. And you certainly have been giving it. Perhaps grammar nazi rather than police would have been a better analogy in your case. I prefer to design and run the experiments rather than spend time at the bench now. Hasn’t worked out too bad though, the place I now work doesn’t require those running labs to do the actual experiments surprisingly, I pay a tech and there are 3 PhD students for that. Maybe one day you will reach that stage too if that is your career goal ;)
You seemingly don’t understand the most basic tool of molecular biology and you expect anybody to believe that. One of my bosses who shall remain nameless (but is the chair of a certain molecular biology society) hasn’t been in a lab in 40 years and would never on his darkest day make that mistake. It’s not something someone in the know wold ever make, actually. Take the but can’t give what? I’m the one with the evidence, remember? The Oxford paper on the lack of increase in Italy? The endless testimonies from experts? That’s me, not you or have you forgotten how evidence works in your time away from the bench?
Well if I can’t understand the basics of science you should report me to Nature and Circulatiin, the destination of 2 of my recent papers.
Riiiight….
@Titus Groan,
Well how about this, if you ever need a transfusion why don’t you ask for this guy’s blood?
Problem solved.
Titus jealousy will get you no where :)
Its disgraceful and blatant discrimination having a ban on gay men giving blood, it’s all the same and could save someone’s life no matter what the persons sexuality….
It is, David. Unscientific and wrong. *rolls up sleeves*. Let the games begin. (You’ll see what I mean).
@Titus, you’re in quite the mood today, aren’t you? But nevertheless you and David are absolutely correct, it’s past time that this stupid ban is lifted
I’ll keep posting the endless research that says the ban is BS, the testimony from the HIV researchers who say it’s nonsense, explain the science that makes the statistically insignificant and mention the fact that Italy already have lifted with the ban on gay men donating blood with you guessed it, no increased cases. So I’ll let them tell me how “It’s not discrinination” in the face of this evidence. Oh but they will, Tariq.
Mood? Whatever do you mean? I’m sick, if that has anything to do with it?
@Tariq.
LOL!
Desperation tactics.
Titus
I finished virolution, like 90 per cent of it made no sense sense to me, being a law person and all, sick job also hanging around plagues,the man has balls of steel.
It covers aids and apparently the first thing the religious did when the outbreak happened was call it divine justice…..
An uncomfortable truth isn’t it Enoch / Joey / Top Cat etc. etc.
‘Truth’?
Care to provide poof then?
More a figment of your imagination.
Nothing new there.
It’s a silly game Tariq………….we could all play that………if we were as childish as you.
Anyway.
Teene: of course they did. A lot of fundamentalist churches still say that. To be honest, viruses are AMAZING. They are just some of the most complex but simple things on he planet. Bacteria are cool and all but viruses are where it’s at.
@Titus, get well soon. On the subject of viruses though, I’ve read somewhere, that some scientists aren’t quite sure if viruses are actually lifeforms, as they’re ‘differently’ alive to other organisms.
Too true. Some are “alive” some are not. Terrible little buggers but incident ly fantastic. Recently viruses have been engineered to destroy cancer cells based on their tropics and that blew my mind. So like, Hep B destroying liver cancer or maybe HPV for melanomas. Mind blowing right?
Viruses are class. They’re not even alive and they can reproduce by robbing the organelles of a host cell. Pretty incredible stuff.
It definitely is very interesting, thanks for the information, Titus and Malachi, something definitely worth reading up on.
Thats very cool Titus, nature want’s to f us up, science says NO., anyhow the book it made me understand evolution way better then I did in school. My next read will be Dawkin’s “the selfish gene”. I love the man, how he can do what he does around the no facts peeps and not crack mentally is superhuman.
The Selfish Gene is a great book. As far as I know some sections are slightly outdated but the book is still very highly regarded as is Dawkins’ work.
Joey / Enoch, I think you’re the one who still talks to their imaginary friends!
I actually loved The Blind Watchmaker. That stood out for me from Dawkins.
‘Unweaving the Rainbow’ and the eh… ahem… book on religion… he wrote are my favourites. Great science communicator altogether.
Whateva!
Look Tariq, we’re not teenagers calling each other names behind the school shed.
This is a public forum, there are other contributors interested in having a debate on the matter.
Please.
Show a modicum of decorum.
Thank you.
I’d recommend the min-series ‘Sex, Death & The Meaning of Life’ by Dawkins, inspiring stuff https://vimeo.com/64076606
Dawkin’s That is the man who is director of a ranch in England which was purchased by the blood and sweat of the slaves traded by his ancestors.A nice hero you have Tariq
Dawkins is no hero of mine Con, I find him bitter and arrogant a lot of the time. However he has done much to shed light on the hypocrisy and child-like state of mind of the religious, as well as creating debate and exploring avenues of interest. I suggest you watch some of his documentaries and then come back with your own synopsis.
will watch that TT, The man has a way with words,.We should be building libraries not churches, when I think of all those hours I spent in church in sunday school taking it all literally, to actually makes me sad.
Back to the viruses the first chapter of viirolution talks about a type of sea slug that lives on solar power The mechanism is unbelievable.
Back to the article, the law must change…I’m from north africa, can I give blood? I was a minor whole time I was there so I should be good right?
I think Dawkin’s is doing a good job helping people leave mental slavery unlike his ancestors. I love how your picking on Dawkins and not the Empires and their militaries still clutching to that same god that allowed them to justify slavery. You think african’s naturally became Anglican or any other european/abrahamic cult because god wanted to save them? Your cray cray Con :D
Tariq, and making a profit on the slave trading of his ancesters
Nah, people buy his books, unlike the bible which only school children buy for religion class and everyone else get one for free, I’ve loads of that a filth, old and new, mormon ones, witness once etc king james I have it in multiple languages, too so that a good money spinner for gods peoples ( I steal them from churches, It’s my way of saving people don’t tell anyone) which the amount of bibles sold at the stage we should have no homelessness, but I guess god likes misery so he can’t guide his sheeple to intellectualism .
Enjoy Teene, yes time spent on religious education or worship is an affront to life itself, such waste. Also check out ‘Enemies of Reason’, Con might be familiar with the background of that one.
Oh please, Con. It’s a bit rich to complain about a chap benefiting from slavery when the practice itself is sanctioned in your Old Testament.
Con is pointing out the hypocrisy on Dawkin’s part in setting himself up as some sort of moral authority.
Quite rightly so.
Eh? Link me to where Dawkins has claimed to be a moral authority on anything.
Also, living off the back of slavery is not a crime and it isn’t morally unacceptable either. It’s not his fault he was brought up into a family that made money off owning others as property. He hasn’t enslaved anyone and indeed has publicly denounced the notion of slavery (during criticisms of the Bible) so he still has the moral highground regardless.
Joey, straight answer for a straight question. Have you ever watched one of Dawkins’ documentaries?
Exactly Malachi, Had dawkins been around in the middle ages we know he’s be dead for challenging myth, or if he was a woman, something about suffering witches etc or gay.
Saw enemies of reason, it’s scary AND funny. How Dawkins keeps a straight face is beyond me.
@Tariq.
Yes.
Still haunts me to this day.
Yeah Teene, people like Dawkins did exist in the Middle Ages I’m sure, we just don’t know their names because they were executed if they ever tried to speak out.
Only a few notables have gone down in history for challenging the religious orthodoxy at that time. The countless others are lost to history.
Don’t take it personally.
This is a national issue. The health of the nation is at stake.
Anyway.
There should be a separate blood banks for the heterosexual community and the gay community.
That way gay men could donate blood to other gay men and this ridiculous argument that there is discrimination would be put to bed once and for all and both communities would be satisfied.
blood bank apartheid?
Looks like the word ‘gay’ triggered Joey into action from Old Testament HQ.
What you have described could be considered the definition of discrimination…
Or practicality.
Or Bullsh!t?
What about men getting blood from women? You don’t want manly men getting girly blood and turning into complete sissies, do you? I mean, you see what women are like when they’re on the blob, you don’t want to be infecting men with that!
Revolutionary approach there Daisy.
The Blood Transfusion Service will be forever in your debt when you contact them Monday morning.
Says the guy with the Bronze Age ‘life manual’, LOL!
Jesus, grow up will you.
I don’t know………………….
Jesus is dead man.
The data proves gay men are statistically more at risk of being HIV/AIDS positive. The ban is just a common sense measure taken to protect public health.
See, now you have me at it……………….. you’ve dragged me down to your level.
Well done Tariq.
“There should be a separate blood banks for the heterosexual community and the gay community.”
you sir need to see a doctor!
Personally I wouldn’t feel comfortable accepting a blood transfusion from a junkie.
Hardly discrimination though is it.
You Sam, really don’t know what you’re arguing against. It’s obvious.
I’m not arguing against anything, I am in favour of the existing situation.
Far-right troglodytes abhor change of any kind so your position is not surprising.
You clearly just made a comment arguing for the status quo. Semantics; the tool of the debating God.
The status quo is a worthy position when the advocates for change put forth poor argument.
Here’s my question. Don’t they do tests on all the blood anyway?
I don’t want to catch the menopause!
“Being a blood donor was part of my identity”
Ah here now WTF.
I’m discriminated against by the BTS because I lived in the UK. I got on with life and thought nothing more of it. Perhaps the author should do the same instead of looking for reasons to be offended.
What about all the straights having unsafe sex but yet still give blood, it thanks to some person out there that I al alive because I need blood, I don’t care if the person is gay or straight becy under law the blood has to be test by IBS
You didn’t have anal or oral sex so you could give blood. Well all I can say is fair play to your boyfriend for sticking around. Did you ever hear of condoms. That way you could have sex and give blood. Sex and conscience ( and bf ) sorted…
No he couldn’t give blood even if he used a condom or indeed double or treble bagged!!
If the IBTS has genuine concerns, why do they still run clinics in colleges where the age group of donors would indicate a higher than average level of sexual activity? Why is it presumed that people who are gay are less responsible that everyone else? If there is a ban on gay donors, then surely there should also be a general ban on donation from ALL young people…and maybe also on all those who have not been certified by the State as being in celibate or single partner relationships? The ban is unworkable and purely discriminatory. Blood donation in this country is based on the honesty and altruism of the donor. They receive no benefit from their generosity other than the knowledge that they make a huge contribution to the lives of the recipients; that of life over potential death. I believe the underlying solution to be in the hands of the IBTS. They must assure the public that they are fulfilling their duty to ensure thorough testing of blood products to the most up-to-date international standards. Their track record suggests that this has not, in the past, been the case. It is long past time for them to implement such procedures as are necessary to ensure that such testing is carried out. They must also implement policies of openness and dialogue and be open to external scrutiny. Meanwhile, I would be grateful to receive blood from Tomas or any gay man or woman, black or white, of any religion or none, should such a situation arise. My sincere thanks to all donors in Ireland. Your kindness is greatly appreciated.
Nothing makes me chuckle as much as going through these comments, like who comments a poem
Nothing makes me chuckle as much as going through these comments, like who comments a poem
I was a regular doner until 1998 when I got a lifetime ban for having a blood transfusion after a PPH
When are they going to lift the ban on fat people giving blood as well? Or are some really that fussy about fat peoples health as they see it?
have your say