Here's a question for our male readers: Have you had sex with another man sometime in the last ten years? If the answer to this question is YES, then under current New Zealand Blood Service (NZBS) regulations, your blood cannot be taken to help save lives in a blood bank. But now the NZBS is reviewing its policy on 'behaviour donor criteria'. They've reviewed the evidence, sought expert legal advice, written a draft report, and have invited public comments on the topic. So here's your chance to cement your thoughts and feed back to the decision makers. Just the facts Men who have sex with men are by far the group most affected by HIV, and the New Zealand epidemic shows no signs of slowing down, with 84 new diagnoses reports in the first half of 2007. And since medication for HIV-related illness is now a lot more effective, these days the number of men around Aotearoa living with HIV is much higher. So in order to reduce the risk of HIV infections through donated blood, men who have sex with men are traditionally blocked from giving blood in most countries of the world. However, two separate HIV tests are run on every blood donation in New Zealand. They are 99.9% accurate, with only a 1 in 1,000,000 chance that both tests fail. But it's important to consider the window period from the time of HIV infection to detection in tests is eleven days for HIV (Hep B is 26 days and Hep C is 10 days). So it's possible to be infected with HIV in the same week as giving blood, and HIV tests may not pick up the virus. Studies show the likely risk of a Transfusion Transmissible Infection occurring for HIV is one person in an eleven-year period based on current donor numbers. However, says the NZ Blood Service, the tiniest of risks is still there and we want to make sure that we can do everything possible to minimize that risk. Discrimination? The 'gay blood ban' could be seen as unfair for a number of reasons. It prevents the New Zealand public from receiving blood from a significant pool of potential donors. Only 4% of New Zealanders currently donate blood, but our blood service relies on approximately 3,000 donations a week from the public - red blood cells only last 35 days. Each donation can save up to three lives, and 85% of us will need blood or blood products during our lifetime. The ban perhaps also unnecessarily discriminates against gay and bisexual men by labelling them as a threat to public health. The blood donor criteria suggests gay sex is a health risk, while heterosexual sex may be perfectly safe. In fact, straight woman and men who have sex without condoms are at much greater risk of HIV than men who have sex with men wearing condoms each time they have sex. The ban might also present embarrassment or 'coming out' issues - for example if the blood bank comes around to the workplace of someone who's not out as gay to their colleagues… they might wonder why their workmate was blocked from giving blood. Also, sexually-active gay and bisexual men can be organ donors, and can now also donate their sperm - so does this mean our Blood Service's criteria is inconsistent with other professional medical organisations? The blood battle elsewhere Men who have sex with men are excluded from donating blood in most countries of the world - often permanently, but sometimes with a time limit. New Zealand's is ten years, Japan and Australia say twelve months, and South Africa's ban is only for 6 months. Italy and Spain have no specific exclusion of blood from gay/bisexual men - instead, they ask specific questions about sexual behaviour, and exclude those with risky or promiscuous recent sexual histories. A Tasmanian man has accused the Australian Red Cross Blood Service of sexual discrimination for refusing to take his blood donations because he's gay. Michael Cain lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission in 2005, saying the policy was discriminatory, unnecessary and disrespectful. "I know that I have safe sex. It almost felt like I was being accused of being a dirty person," he told the Sydney Morning Herald. He says the nurse referred to him and other gay men as "you people." Cain, who says he's in a monogamous long-term relationship, believes "a new donor screening policy based on the safety of donors' sexual practices rather than the gender of their sexual partners would make the blood supply safer." Cain's complaint is still under consideration, and has the potential to overturn Australia's blood donor ban on men who have had homosexual sex in the past year. …and here in New Zealand? The New Zealand Blood Service has met with representatives of the NZ AIDS Foundation, NZ Prostitutes Collective, and other interested parties in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. Their draft report is available to read on the link below. The Rainbow Wellington network was sent the report, and say they have replied -"expressing disappointment at the general acceptance of the status quo, with their inadequate and sometimes quite patronising reasoning for this position. Rainbow Wellington concludes: "We were not surprised at this initial result, as both the US and UK have recently confirmed their even stricter regulations, and it would take political courage to break away from the current position." A handful of individual gay men have also submitted comments on the report - here's some sample quotes: "Couldn't this same low level of risk for a Transfusion Transmissible Infection also be achieved by asking questions regarding promiscuity such as 'how many sexual partners in a time period?' 'Was it protected or unprotected?' 'Was it with a monogamous long term partner of maybe for 2 or more years?' 'When was your last sexual health check up?' Most heterosexual people I know have NEVER had a sexual health check up before. That's a BIG worry and not just cause they're allowed to give blood." "You cannot say that it's okay to discriminate against such a large group of people with whom many will be equally - if not more - safe than current donors, just because many other countries do, which is what the report tries to use as an excuse." "If I have oral sex using a condom with my monogamous long term partner today, and then don't have sex with anyone else for another 8 years, I still can't give blood for a further two years. However if I was a heterosexual man I could have unprotected sex with three girls tonight and give blood next week." "This current approach of discrimination puts gay men off wanting to volunteer to donate blood. They not only get put off, they get completely humiliated and made to feel dirty and filthy just because they're gay." "The fact the NZ Blood Service doesn't already ask questions regarding the promiscuity of ALL potential donors is quite alarming and really just pure negligence." Your chance to have a say Public comments on the Behaviour Donor Deferral Criteria Review are still being accepted (for the next week or so) via email at: charlotte.paul@otago.ac.nz . We're also keen to get your thoughts and encourage debate on this topic… GayNZ.com's message board is always open! Matt Akersten - 22nd November 2007