Gay blood ban case resumes

Gay blood ban case resumes

The Tribunal hearing the gay ban discrimination case against the Australian Red Cross Blood Service has subpoenaed further testimony from the Red Cross’s former epidemiology adviser.

Professor John Kaldor from the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research at UNSW no longer advises the Red Cross but supported its 12-month gay ban to maintain public confidence.

However, the full 12 months was conservative, he admitted, because a new HIV infection just nine days old would be detected during blood screening.

From a strictly medical basis, only anal sex needed a deferral at all, but a ban on all gay sex would help public confidence, he said.

Kaldor added that STI rates other than HIV were not a good justification for a gay blood ban.

Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group spokesman Rodney Croome said Kaldor’s HIV-related research had limited usefulness in determining risk because it was focused on groups of gay men that were drawn primarily from bars and bathhouses.

This is not a representative sample and its high HIV rates should not be the basis of banning all gay men from blood donation, Croome said.

Michael Cain, who is HIV-negative, brought the case to the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal after being told he could not donate blood in 2003 because he was in a same-sex relationship.

During hearings in August witnesses for the Red Cross claimed that kissing was enough fluid contact to qualify as sex.

You May Also Like

3 responses to “Gay blood ban case resumes”

  1. I am alarmed that the Red Cross gay ban is purposely conservative to maintain public confidence. If anyone thinks for a moment, the attitude undermines confidence in blood screening, in HIV testing, in healthcare and science in general. If the Red Cross can’t trust their own screening procedures how can we trust them? The lack of a scientific evidence base to the funtioning of the Red Cross is a grave concern. Why are they stuck in the ‘kissing-might-be-dangerous’ approach of 25 years ago? Is this just blatant homophobia at any cost?

  2. It is about time the Red Cross was challenged on this ridiculous ban.
    Talk about sexuality based discrimination!
    Seems the hetero community can be as unsafe as it likes and nobody gives a rats ….
    I suggest we all start a civil suit against the Red Cross … that would make them take notice