Final arguments in blood ban case

Final arguments were heard in the Tasmanian blood ban case this week, as lawyers turned to debating the social good that could come of removing a ban on gay men donating to the Red Cross Blood Bank Service.

The Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal has heard closing arguments in the case of Michael Cain, a gay man who was denied the opportunity to give blood after admitting to being involved in a same-sex relationship.

Cain’s lawyer, Peter Tree SC, made the final point to the Tribunal that there were gay men at lesser risk for HIV than many heterosexuals. They should be allowed to donate blood, to contribute to the amount of safe blood available for people in need.

The Red Cross has assisted in perpetuating the stereotype that gay sex is risky and unhealthy, he told the Tribunal.

There is no medical evidence to support a ban on men engaging in a range of sexual activities with other men, including oral sex. This alone should compel the Tribunal to find that the Red Cross policy is unjustifiable.

The level of social good which could come from dropping the blanket ban was a point refuted by the opposing lawyer, Jeremy Ruskin SC, who suggested that gay men would be committing a far kinder act by abstaining from giving blood, considering the level of risk involved.

Meanwhile back in Sydney, the Red Cross has defended its decision to station money drivers along Oxford St.

We have not had any reports of complaints from members of the public about our recent fundraising activities in the Oxford St area, a spokeswoman for Red Cross Australia said.

The fundraisers in the Oxford St area were asking people to consider making regular donations to Red Cross’ humanitarian work like providing breakfast to kids who might otherwise go to school hungry, supporting people in urban indigenous communities and working with people affected by HIV in places like China, Mongolia and PNG.