Safe sex ‘not enough’

Safe sex ‘not enough’

Being a gay man determines overall HIV risk, rather than the use of condoms or type of sex, an epidemiology researcher claimed during the second day of the resumed hearings against the Red Cross blood bank’s gay ban.

UNSW professor John Kaldor testified that there were differences between masturbation, oral sex and anal intercourse, but the prevalence of HIV within the demographic was the key factor.

It’s not just what you’re doing, it’s what the prevalence is in the partners with whom you’re doing it, Kaldor told the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.

In the Australian setting that difference in prevalence [between gay and straight] is of the order of 100 fold or more.

Unprotected anal heterosexual sex had lower risk than if you’re doing something that is in itself a low risk behaviour such as sex with condoms in a setting where there’s very high prevalence in that underlying partner population, Kaldor continued.

Just half a percent of Sydney gay men used condoms all the time according to the Health in Men cohort study, Kaldor pointed out.

But even among those who claim to be safe, he expected to see a huge differential between HIV incidence in gay men and the wider Australian population.

The Tribunal has asked Kaldor to produce more estimates based on mathematical modelling when it resumes in three weeks.

ACON and the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations declined to comment on the case while it is still being heard.

The Launceston man who brought the case against the Australian Red Cross Blood Service, Michael Cain, told Joy FM in Melbourne Kaldor’s evidence had the potential to make or break the case.

Professor Kaldor’s cross-examination was a bit of a mixed bag, Cain said.

How can they say protected anal sex with a gay couple is higher risk than a heterosexual couple? I think it’s more a statistical thing than a physical possibility.

The Tribunal ruling is expected in 12-18 months.

You May Also Like

11 responses to “Safe sex ‘not enough’”

  1. Please don’t criticise acon, Marcus, everyone will assume you are me.

    Simple answer seems to be, why ask donors if they have had male to male sex? Why not just ask if they have engaged in risky practices?

    Oh, and as to the AFAO document you posted, Marcus, right under where it said, ‘male to male sex’ is one of the few reasons that donors are banned, it states “there is no blanket ban on gay men donating blood.” So I guess AFAO’s position is that only asexual (not ass-sexual )gay men should give blood.

  2. Fair enough if its a Tasmanian case.

    My point is, why should ACON be maintaining radio silence on this issue? If it’s policy is against blood donations why not publicly explain its reasons behind the policy.

    The reason given for not commenting on this issue is appalling, given that ACON is willing to quote on so many other issues which aren’t central to the objects of its constitution.

    And as for the comment about ACON-bashing. Pfft. I’m one of ACON’s biggest supporters and a paid up member – (which reminds me my subs are due!)

    However, I strongly disagree on how they handled the 20/20 summit and how they’re handling the blood ban issue. I think it reflects very poorly on the organisation.

    It’s hardly ACON bashing to express an opinion.

    And why the speech marks around my name “Barry”?

  3. Christ, any old excuse for a bit of ACON-bashing eh “Marcus?”

    The case is being heard in Tasmania so there’s no earthly reason why the AIDS Council of NSW should be applying to intervene in proceedings. All the state and territory AIDS Councils (including the Tasmanian Council on HIV and Related Diseases) are members of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (AFAO) and AFAO’s position statement on blood donation remains unchanged AFAIK.

    I imagine that AFAO is following the proceedings closely and I think that they’re sensible to avoid any comment while the case is before the Tribunal.

  4. really you would have thought as our community’s ‘peak health organisation’ ACON would be applying to intervene in the proceedings, rather than impose some unfathomable self-censorship.

  5. Absolutley Scott.

    It makes the feted glbtq 20 20 acon led summit seem a little hollow. For all the posturing about setting a road map for our community led by our *cough cough* peak organizations the fact ACON won’t lobby on the issue speaks volumes.

  6. Actually Marcus, you are both right and wrong.
    While the statement you refer to is 100 percent correct, neither organisation will comment on the specifics of the case, which is what we have been asking them to do.
    Scott

  7. Next just looking at someone will be enough to transfer an STI – oh wait, only if you are gay … straights of course don’t spread disease at all … they are all fine upstanding and moral members of the community.
    PUKE!

  8. YaY!!! Another way to brand HIV as a “Gay” disease!! – wow we have really come a long way from the 80’s.

  9. Again 0n TV this morning The Red Cross is complaining about the great shortage of Blood Donors, also on an episode of RPA last night? can you make any sense of that???? Gay Kissing? thats so 1985!