Hot on the heels of the United Kingdom, which ended their gay blood donor ban in favour of a one year deferral last week, Canadian Blood Services is now mulling a similar change.

Canada’s permanent deferral on blood donations from men who have had sex with another man—even once—has never been scientifically sound; on top of that, the ban has been increasingly difficult to defend as more and more countries shed the practice. CBS has gone through several revisitations of the issue, but they always ended up being more theatrics than science, opting for the status quo. Somehow, though, I think this time will be different. Heck, even Russia, which is pretty darn anti-gay, has ended their lifetime ban on gay donors.

The identically cautious adoption of a one-year deferral is based on the rationale that particularly dangerous contaminants, such as HIV and hepatitis B, are undetectable for a period of time. Since all blood donations are tested for blood-borne contaminants, a period of a few months is really all that’s necessary, but donor clinics want to be especially vigilant, so a 12 month buffer makes sense.

And yet, I still find this change problematic.

As I’ve pointed out many times before, the problem isn’t the length of the ban (although forever was clearly a bit excessive), but rather the question that triggers it. This question essentially singles out sexual orientation instead of sexual behavior, treating many safe donors as risky, and many risky donors as safe. Monogamous gay couples, for example, are still effectively banned by the questionnaire, while a straight man that has unprotected sex with hundreds of partners is treated like an ideal donor, despite being a far greater risk.

This problem shouldn’t be difficult to resolve. The question could be replaced with something along the lines of: “Have you had more than one sexual partner in the last year?” followed by “Has your sexual partner had more than one sexual partner in the last year?” Answering yes to either could trigger the deferral without singling out sexual orientation and would likely even improve the quality of the blood supply by catching risky straight donors in addition to gay ones.

But, hey, these things are slow, so I’ll take ending the ban as a baby step in the right direction. Kinda.

• Blood-donation ban for gay men gets 2nd look [CBC News]

Update, April 2: For anyone who doesn’t like to check calendars on a regular basis: Yes, this announcement—and the accompanying terrible illustration—was an April Fools joke. The rest of the post is real though, so good luck to Mr. Lomaga with his blood ban case!

If you’re a gay man in Canada and have had sex even once since 1977, you are permanently banned from donating blood in the country. If you’re surprised by this, you likely haven’t tried donating blood for a very, very long time. This policy has been on the books for about thirty years now, despite having organisations like the Red Cross come out against it.

Nonetheless, Canadian Blood Services has rested stubbornly with the policy. The organisation even launched a successful court case against Kyle Freeman, a gay man, for having donated blood against the organisation’s policy two years ago. While that case ultimately ruled in favour of CBS because they were not a government organisation and therefore not subject to Canada’s charter of rights, the policy is about to be tested again.

Adrian Lomaga, a Montréal student, is challenging the gay blood ban policy of Héma-Québec (which is more likely to be ruled as a government organisation) on April 4. In response, Héma-Québec is suing Health Canada (clearly a government organisation), saying that if they lose this case, it’s the fault of their parent organisation for forcing the policy on them.

I’ve always been confused by the gay blood ban. Defining the exclusion group as haphazardly as “gay men” is likely considerably more harmful to the blood supply than other proposed alternatives. For one, it perpetuates the myth that all gay men have tainted blood. On top of that, it fails to catch heterosexuals who may engage in far riskier sexual practices than a monogamous gay man. A wiser system would shift the focus on the number of partners a donor has, as well as whether or not the donor engages in risky sexual practices—such as not using condoms. HIV and other blood-borne infectants don’t care about the gender of their host, after all.

So, good luck to Adrian Lomaga! May you soon have large needles inserted into your veins, and your blood removed in large quantities!

• Second gay blood ban case heads to court [Xtra]

Canadian Blood Services continues to ban blood donations from gay males, permanently barring all men who have had sex with another man—even once—since 1977. It’s a dumb policy, and one that helps propagate the myth that all gay men are sexually promiscuous and inherently dangerous to the blood supply.

That could change, though; many other countries implement a questionnaire that bases their bans on risky sexual practices, such as having multiple partners and unprotected sex, rather than simple sexual orientation. It makes a lot of sense, particularly since it would also catch tainted blood from heterosexuals—a group which currently has barely any restrictions in Canada. But so far CBS isn’t budging, citing a need for research.

That research, incidentally, should be underway—but it’s not. CBS set aside $500,000 in research grants two years ago to help fund studies into implementing a different policy, but not one scientist has applied for the funding yet.

So, what’s the deal, medical researchers? I know it’s competitive to find funding for scientific research, so it can’t be that you guys don’t want it. Surely this is just a matter of poor advertising for the grant.

Of course, if no one else wants the money, I have my M.Sc.

It’s in a completely unrelated field of science, mind you, but I’m sure I could wing it. Any science not based in math is just improvisation anyway. So, yeah, call me?

• Canadian Blood Services continuing gay ban [Toronto SUN]
• Scientists ignore grant to research blood donations by gay men [Montreal Gazette]

An Ontario court has ruled that Kyle Freeman, a gay man who was sued by Canadian Blood Services for lying on his blood donation questionnaire, was negligent and does not have the right to donate blood. Freeman indicated on his form, untruthfully, that he had not had sex with other men because answering honestly would have deferred him as a donor for life. CBS has a long-standing policy on permanently banning blood donations from any man who has had sex with another man—even once—since 1979.

I’ve been a longtime critic of this policy, but have always respected the letter of it, even if it is deeply flawed. Canadian Blood Services does, indeed, have the right to refuse donations from whomever they choose. No individual, straight or gay, has to have their blood donations accepted by CBS. In this sense, the Kyle Freeman case was an unfortunate way for this issue to have reached the courts; his claim was based on a right that doesn’t really exist. That said, CBS must stop defending its policy as it stands.

My beef with the policy isn’t that I believe I have some inalienable right to donate blood, it’s that the policy focuses on the wrong traits, ignoring the real risks in demographics and instead overtly spreading the myth that gay men are such an inherent danger that having sex with one—even once, since 1979—threatens the quality of Canada’s blood supply.

The flaw is easy to illustrate. Canada’s fastest growing HIV demographic is young, heterosexual women, who already make up 25% of all HIV infections in the country. Yet they aren’t deferred from donating blood. Nor should they be. Why assume, after all, that everyone in the YHW community is a risk when most aren’t? Yet this is precisely the logic used behind CBS’s gay blood ban.

CBS’s policy has got to be replaced by one that emphasizes unprotected sex and the number of sexual partners of a donor, regardless of their gender or the genders of the people they have sex with. Monogamous gay men and those that practice safe sex with limited partners are not a risk to the blood supply, something the American Red Cross has repeatedly noted. CBS already screens every donor with more than acceptable accuracy. That they continue to stand by a policy that focuses on sexual orientation instead of risky sexual practices reinforces the stereotype of the promiscuous gay male and, worse, lends a reputation behind that stereotype that harms the entire gay community.

I have no idea what consequences Ontario’s ruling will have on the movement to adopt a more effective screening questionnaire, but it certainly hasn’t given CBS the kick it needs to reflect on its own policy and to listen to the doctors and medical organisations that oppose it.

• Gay Ont. man loses blood donation negligence suit [CBC News]

A group of doctors has come forward in support of lifting Canadian Blood Services’ permanent deferral of gay men donating blood. In a medical paper published in yesterday’s issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, several doctors submitted that the ban is unscientific, harmful and must be reconsidered. A step in the right direction, if Canadian Blood Services takes notice.

In Canada, all potential blood donors must fill out a questionnaire before getting in the chair. Any man who answers yes to a question asking if he has had sex with another man—even once—since the 1970s is permanently barred from donating.

Canada has been facing a blood shortage, and while the safety of the blood supply is more important than the right of any individual to donate, the questionnaire is flawed; it filters potential donors based purely on who they are, not through any scientific risk analysis. This not only turns away healthy gay donors and fails to catch unhealthy heterosexual ones,  but also perpetuates the myth that all gay men are inherently dangerous. Replacing the question with one that, instead, filters potential donors based on a history of risky behaviour irrespective of their gender would solve these issues.

Hopefully Canadian Blood Services will take note. And who knows? With more and more medical experts coming out against the ban, maybe one day I, too, will be able to experience the pleasure of having my veins punctured with hollow metal spikes, and watch litres of blood leave my body into bags until I feel woozy.

• Revisit blood donor ban for gay men: MDs [CBC News]

Canadian Blood Services has gotten a lot of heat for its unscientific ban of gay blood donors, particularly while blood is at a shortage. Gay men are permanently barred for life from donating blood, even if they have been tested and are in monogamous relationships.

It looks like Canadian Blood Services has been reviewing the science behind some of its policies, though, as a ban on gay men donating bone marrow and stem cells has now been lifted. The policy change is relatively minor, mind you, as bone marrow and stem cell transplants require nearly perfect genetic matches. Only 250 such operations are conducted per year.

Still, that means there are about 250 people annually who will be more likely to find a donor match to save or improve their lives. It’s also a positive step in recognition of the scientific and statistical literature, which has consistently shown that gay men pose no inherent risk, and that screening based on risky sexual practices instead of sexual orientation improves the safety for everyone.

It’s a step in the right direction. Not that I’m too keen on undergoing a painful bone marrow extraction operation right now or anything…

• Debunking the bad blood myth [Metro News]
• Canadian Blood Services lifts ban on gay bone marrow donors [Xtra]