• Full Story

Gay rights group appeals blood ban

Email
Print

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:12a.m.

Rainbow Wellington chairman Tony Simpson said the ban was discriminatory

Rainbow Wellington chairman Tony Simpson said the ban was discriminatory

A gay rights group is challenging the New Zealand Blood Service's ban on sexually-active homosexual men giving blood.

Queer rights group Rainbow Wellington complaint against the ban will be heard by the Human Rights Commission in February, The Press reported.

The group is challenging the blood service's prohibition of any man who had engaged in protected or unprotected anal or oral sex with another man over the past five years from giving blood.

The ban had changed since a 2007 review, before which any man who had engaged in homosexual acts over the past decade was banned from giving blood.

Rainbow Wellington chairman Tony Simpson said the ban was discriminatory.

"We say five years is too long, and in practical terms there's no difference between that and 10 years," he said.

"There's very little evidence, if any, that oral sex is a source of HIV-Aids infection, and we say sex with a condom is probably about as safe as you could get."

New Zealand Blood Service spokesman Paul Hayes said the safety of the blood supply was key in the selection of donors.

"We certainly don't believe it's discrimination."

Aids Foundation spokeswoman Dawn O'Connor said the foundation supported the service's view.

NZPA

 

 

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

03 Dec 2009 04:11p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Interesting enough, the American Red Cross, America's Blood Banks and other US blood donation NGOs only favour a one-year donation ban. Incidentally, I should note that the gay community is divided on this. As the article notes, the NZ AIDS Foundation agrees with the NZ Blood Service about blood product risk, as does Britain's Terrence Higgins Trust in the UK context. Interestingly though, it should be noted that those jurisdictions that have abandoned the blanket ban approach have not recorded any precipitous rise in HIV transmissions through blood born transfusion contact.

02 Dec 2009 08:49p.m.

Chuck wrote:

GWM, another interesting FACT is that ANYONE who has unprotected sex or so called protected sex can get the HIV virus. A man married to a woman for 30 years could get the HIV virus. He could also get struck by lighting. You have quoted some selective figures. How about doing some homework? Tell us how many men have become infected with HIV from a wife who was born in New Zealand. I strongly suspect NONE. There have probably been a few married women who have become infect by a husband who unbeknown to them was a closed bisexual. These count as heterosexual infection instead of bisexual infection as they should. The majority of women infested are infected overseas as the source you have used makes clear. I assume GWM is an acronym for Gay White Male. The gays fought for the right to do what they what to do in private without fear of being persecuted. They have won that right. Stop meddling in what you know little about to prove a point and put the public at risk.

02 Dec 2009 04:40p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Let us be clear here. We are talking about gay men who conscientiously and regularly engage in safe sexual behaviour, who wish to do their civic duty and donate blood so that others lives can benefit from blood transfusions. A blanket ban makes no sense. No one is talking about abandoning screening protocols altogether.

In the United Kingdom, there is a shortage of donor blood. Is this the case in New Zealand?

02 Dec 2009 03:35p.m.

GWM wrote:

An interesting FACT follows that show ANYONE who has unprotected sex can get the HIV virus. Looks like heterosexuals should be banned from giving blood also

The AIDS Epidemiology Group at the University of Otago Medical School has released its half-year report on HIV/AIDS in New Zealand.

Seventy eight people were diagnosed with HIV through antibody testing in New Zealand in the first half of 2009. Thirty six were men infected through sex with other men, 29 (11 men and 18 women) through heterosexual contact, four through injected drug use, and for nine people the means of infection was unknown or unreported.

02 Dec 2009 03:33p.m.

Proud Kiwi wrote:

So John, (02Dec09 10.55am)

"...these type op (sic) people, who knows what they carry..."

What type of person are you?

One can only assume a bigoted and judgemental sort based on your disparaging comments.

Homosexuality was legalised in this country in 1986 - shame that “your type” is still caught in a time-warp!

What is your blood contaminated with apart from hatred?

Blood is a precious commodity that can save lives. Fortunately it is well screened in New Zealand for viruses – not sexual orientation, colour, ethnicity or religion - or bigots (sadly). Would your type rather die than receive a homosexual’s blood?

In your ignorance you seem to have forgotten that HIV/AIDS is not a homosexual disease and equally, that hepatitis is far more easily spread and contract than HIV.

Maybe you need to get your blood-work checked!

02 Dec 2009 03:20p.m.

ash wrote:

If it is a fact that disease is more prevalent among homosexuals because of what they do -- then let the chips fall where they may and forbid ANYONE involved in those dangerous practices from donating blood. This is a clear case of stupid political correctness attempting to compromise safety methods in blood collection. Homosexuals always seem to deny more dangerous health issues are involved in what they do, as apposed to heterosexuals. The Blood Service must hold firm. Homosexuals ought to reflect on the reasons.

02 Dec 2009 01:28p.m.

Chuck wrote:

The reason for the initial ban on gay blood donations was that in the early 80’s before a lot was known about HIV transmission many people became infected with blood from gay donors. Until recently a person could be HIV+ but this would not be detected until up to 90 days. Blood screening methods have improved but the fact remains that on a population basis gays are many times more likely to be HIV+ than heterosexuals. NZ Blood Services makes their policy on a risk management basis not a political one. No screening method is perfect and it makes sense to exclude those who are at a at high risk of being HIV+ - be they gays, prostitutes or those who have lived in certain countries. My taxes fund the NZ AIDS Foundation. They should stick to policies to reduce the spread of HIV. They have done the opposite. They successfully lobbied to stop screening potential migrants for HIV. We have seen the results and that policy has changed – albeit too late. Lobbying to allow gays to donate blood may make gays feel good but do nothing to reduce the spread of HIV.

02 Dec 2009 12:52p.m.

KLee wrote:

Doesnt matter if you are hetrosexual or homosexual, anyone can get HIV if they are not safe, all blood has to be screened so why discriminate against homosexuals. I keep getting letters in the mail saying there is a blood shortage and now they are limiting the number of people who can give.

02 Dec 2009 12:42p.m.

Meagan wrote:

A donor's sexuality is irrelevant, this is ridiculous. If their blood is viable, clean and infection free, then why shouldn't they be allowed to donate blood? What about women who have been with bisexual men? Is the Blood Service going to rule them out too? Good on you, Rainbow Wellington, for challenging this!

02 Dec 2009 12:13p.m.

Leech wrote:

It's just sensible risk-management. I used to give blood but rules changed and because I lived in the UK in the '80s I could no longer do so (BSE risk). I was a bit miffed at the time, but the risks outweigh the very small proportion of potential donors that are excluded for this and similar reasons.