Gay blood ban not discrimination, tribunal rules
A Tasmanian gay man has lost his discrimination case against the Australian Red Cross Blood Service.
The Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal ruled today that the gay blood ban did not amount to direct or indirect discrimination. However, it also made a number of observations suggesting the policy be reviewed as further data on blood risk becomes available.
“In any event, the conduct of the Red Cross was required by law and so even if he had been subjected to discrimination the conduct of the Red Cross could not be unlawful,” the decision stated.
Michael Cain, who brought the action after his offer to donate blood was refused, said he was disappointed.
“This was a knife-edge decision in which the Tribunal erred on the side of caution, but given how much of my case it agreed with, I am confident the next time this matter goes to court the outcome will be a new policy,” he said in a statement.
“The Red Cross’s absurd claims that all gay sex is very high risk because gay men are all sexually irresponsible and promiscuous are now officially dead and buried.”
You May Also Like
Senseless, discriminatory and ridiculous. Why not just test the goddamn blood, not all gay men are promiscuous. Thank god lesbian blood donation isn’t banned. Yet.
Did you know that when you are injected with someone elses blood you carry the Good or Bad Karma and traits of the Donor. Same as in Kidney and Heart Transplants. So, its a far bigger issue than just Gays Donating blood we are dealing with here.
To the point about living in England and being exposed to mad cow disease, what about a vegetarian living in England during this time…they could yell discrimination too.
Let’s move on and stop peering into every corner, straining to find evidence of discrimination.
James – “Andrew M. Potts – you’re splitting hairs. Discrimination is discrimination”
James I view the discrimination as serious because being gay is not something you choose, its like saying all asians are banned for donating blood. The discrimination you are claiming is not in the same context because personally it seems as if the Red Cross does not agree with my homosexuality and they see me as some dirty object as I cant help my sexuality and it comes across as an attack on me as I know that this is who I am for the rest of my human life, whereas in your case I feel the Red Cross is personally not saying your blood is dirty or disageeing with your sexuality, the issue between with your blood donation and the Red Cross is simply that you choose to reside in the UK. Its like the Red Cross is simply slapping you and they are beating me with an iron bar. I hope what I said to you makes sense. I encourage you to complain to the Red Cross on your discrimination.
ANdrew M. Potts – you’re splitting hairs. Discrimination is discrimination.
James, you’re excluded from giving blood because of something that you did as an individual (lived in UK for more than 6 months) not because of something you are (heterosexual).
Gay men are excluded for something that they are (gay) not because of something they did as an individual (had unsafe sex or used an intravenous drug).
There is a huge difference between the two.
Apparently I cannot donate blood because the policy of the Red Cross is to “exclude people from donating who have resided in the UK between 1980 and 1996 for a total (cumulative) time of 6 months or more.”
This is due to the risk that I may be carrying the mad cow virus.
Maybe I should scream “discrimination” and take the Red Cross to court.
By the way, I’m not a mad cow.
HGD, the proportion of African migrants in Australia who are living with HIV is still larger than that of the general population- whether they’ve been in Australia for longer than 12 months or not.
I did not state that Indigenous Australians had higher rates of HIV- they’re about the same, though the percentage of Indigenous Australians who contract HIV through heterosexual couplings is larger than in the general population.
What I stated was that there were higher rates of infection with blood born viruses in the Indigenous community than in the general population.
Hepatitis B effects people in larger numbers in our Indigenous communities- yet they are not subjected to a blanket ban.
Nor should they and nor should we.
Around 70-75% of Australian HIV notifications may derive from sex between men, but this still constitutes a small minority among gay men in Australia as a whole who practice safe sex at much higher rates than heterosexual Australians do.
In South Africa gay men can donate blood and how many south aficans has contacted HIV/AIDS though donated blood since the ban was over turned in 2000 ? The answer is NONE. And everybody in South Africa wanting to donate blood (either hetro/homo) must have a HIV/AIDS test which is free before donating. I should also mention that the South African blood service tests all blood for potential HIV infection anyway.
As a gay man, I feel the best recourse here is to tell the Red Cross I’m straight and donate blood anyway. That way, not only will all the homophobic assholes be infected with my disgusting gay blood but all those who really NEED it (and who couldn’t care less) won’t go without.
By the way, I’ve slept with far less people than ANY of my heterosexual friends.
SSO – Fair enough then, my gripe is withdrawn, look forward to the main edition.
Dean – HGD is quite right, to take your point about individual’s behaviour, would you therefore suggest considering blood donations from injecting drug users who only use clean needles, avoiding the risk of hepatitis?
Reality check: the population of gay men does have a significantly higher rate of HIV. The priority is reducing that unhappy statistic, not delusional wailing about discrimination.
Well HGD, is the restriction is about ‘population-level risk not about your own – or anyone else’s – individual risk behaviour…’ then that is discriminatory. Bans need to be based on the donor’s personal history of high risk activity. Just because someone is gay does not conclude that they have practised anything high risk, they might well have been in a monogamous risk-free condom-using long term relationship, whereas any random non-gay blood donor candidate might just as likely be a promiscuous, non-condom-using/needle user.
Two noteable blogs here – Thank you to HGD for a thoughtful and helpful contribution, and a useful response to Andrew Pott’s position.
Frankly, they both wrote points the SSO should have included; this issue has been running a long time, it was worth better journalism than it received.
Editor’s Note: Ben, this was an onlnine update only as we were already on the street. More information will appear in this Wednesday’s issue.
The post above from “James” is not from me; “me” being the recent regular contributor, “homophbic bigot” and “salt shaker”!
“I must admit, I do support the decision for a gay blood ban, statistic do show that a number of gay males do live promiscuous lives and the majority of aids sufferes are gay men.”
And I know straight men and women who have very promiscuous lifestyles.
Andrew, I don’t know how many times this needs to be said
(lots it seems ) but the restriction is about population-level risk not about your own – or anyone else’s – individual risk behaviour.
So in Australia, heterosexuals are much less likely – at a population level – to present with HIV. Aboriginal people are much less likely – at a population level – to present with HIV. Gay men are exponentially much more likely – at a population level – to present with HIV. In fact, around 70-75% of Australian HIV notifications derive from sex between men compared to approximately 40% of Western European notifications.
This has particular applicability around the fact that while all donated blood is tested, there’s a period of time (the window period) after a person first becomes infected with a virus during which the infection may not be detectable. So, the person’s blood could still transmit a disease if transfused to a patient, even though their tests were negative and there was no sign of infection at the time of donation….you don’t need to be told that the chances of his happening (though very low in the overall scheme of things) are statistically much higher in men who have sex with men than in other donor populations.
BTW, African migrants are not eligible to donate blood if they’ve come from a high HIV prevalence country within the last 12 months or had sex with someone from a high HIV prevalence country within the last 12 months. This flows from the same population-level risk avoidance logic that applies to gay men, the only difference being that African migrants pose no greater risk than the general population once they’ve lived here for some time.
The policy needs to remain under review because as testing technology improves – and it’s improving all the time – it’s possible that we’ll get to a point where window period detection becomes much more accurate earlier in the piece. If/when that happens I’ll be leading the charge to change the policy.
James the issue here is that all blood is already tested for blood born viruses before it goes into the supply. Yet as the current rules stand, you can be straight and have unprotected sex with a different woman every night of the week and still give blood, yet if you’re gay and having safe sex within a committed relationship you can’t. All that has been asked is that the Red Cross screen people out based on their behaviour, not on their sexual orientation. In Spain and Italy this already occurrs and they’ve found that standards of safety have risen, not decreased, and at the same time they’ve enlarged their pool of potential donors. In the meantime blood banks in Australia continue to call out for donors as supplies slip away and dwindle. I happen to have O Rh- blood- the most sought after of all blood types as it can be taken by almost anyone, yet despite never having unprotected sex in my life I can’t donate. So, sorry Red Cross, until you change the policy, you won’t be getting any of my money either. Other groups that have higher rates of blood born viruses (such as Indigenous Australians and African migrants) aren’t subjected to a blanket ban, and neither should we.
“gay males do live promiscuous lives and the majority of aids sufferes are gay men.” The first part of this statement is a gross generalisation- I know lots of straights who live promiscious drug-fueled, group-sex (just look at our straight footballers!), wild lives, and yet can freely give blood, without generalistions heaped on them. The second part of the statement makes me laugh- the majority of HIV & AIDS cases in the world as a whole are straight people.
btw- I just love when in the old days very well respected people and religious groups would say that AIDS was God’s punishment cause he hates gays. Then when it came out there were heaps of straights in Africa with it, then next we had the Jehova Witnesses knocking at the door saying can we donate money to the poor innocent AIDs victims in Africa… I just say to them that God gave those people AIDS cause he hates black people! then slam the door in thier face. :)
Point of the story is you can’t have it both ways- if 1st grade footballers involved in group sex sessions whilst high on drugs can give blood, then why can’t a monogamous gay couple? (Monogamous gay couples are banned on the basis that they have had male to male sex in the last 12mths… ridiculous!!!!)
BLOODY HOMOPHOBIA…..Shame Red Cross Shame
There is no such thing as HIGH RISK GROUPS..ONLY HIGH RISK BEHAVIOUR
My concern is that it appears that the Red Cross cannot scan the blood they receive for infections. If they can then there is no need to discriminate against gay men who wish to donate to them. If they can’t they are acting recklessly and have no right to provide blood to anyone.
The Red Cross is always crying out for blood and so desperate these days. How enthusiastic are Heteros to give blood? Answer= They dont give a damn! Well, thats a good boycott! Heteros are helping Gays without even trying!
You know when Im confronted by red cross people in the street I tell them to “Piss off” My blood stays in my veins. It is ludicrous to ask people to donate blood and equally to ban certain people.
Blood donation banning on terms of sexual preference is senseless and discriminatory -“ blood donation eligibility/ bans need to be based on the donor’s personal history of high risk activity. Just because someone is gay does not conclude that they have practised anything high risk, they might well have been in a monogamous risk-free condom-using long term relationship, whereas any random non-gay blood donor candidate might just as likely be a promiscuous, non-condom-using/needle user.
Would it be wildly out of order for the Star to actually check out the Tribunal judgement and offer some comment? It is quite long – and I admit that it’s a bit harder than just running Rodney’s amusingly revisionist take on the matter – but I bet you could come up with a more considered analysis than the Pythonesque, “despite losing completely, we won!”
James – Dont complain if you end up in hospital and there’s a lack of blood supply, especially if your a rare blood type.
I am betting blogger Steve would happily accept blood from the Red Cross.
When it comes to health, I am sticking with the health experts, rather than the idealogues and zealots.
Good on the various AIDS/HIV organisations for not backing this. The campaigner would’ve been better off using his time to help AIDS/HIV charities.
Its rather degrading to be told they don’t want your blood if your gay especially if your O- (The type they cry out for the most).They seem to have this stigma that “All” gay men are sexual deviants.If their rules state “Hetro Only” they should shine a lamplight on their own community,you would be shocked to see what “They” get up too,your local porn shop would be your best example to see this,sick…
I agree that the guy very high risk.I think no body will like to to get guys blood. UN lees he is guy, he wont mind. and if they will except the blood donation they should label it for guy’s.
I must admit, I do support the decision for a gay blood ban, statistic do show that a number of gay males do live promiscuous lives and the majority of aids sufferes are gay men.
For 5 years now – I have NEVER EVER donated one cent or supported the Red cross in any stape or form. The Red cross can go and get fucked!!!!!!!