The MSM blood ban is an outright refusal to accept blood donations from men who have had sex with other men in their lifetime. This ban exists alongside a multitude of other bans and deferral periods, including a lifelong ban on those who have spent a year cumulatively in England between 1980 and 1996, and a four-month deferral period for those who have recently gotten a tattoo or piercing. As with the other bans, the Irish Blood Transfusion Service (IBTS) support the ban with medical evidence and arguments of best practise. What is unique about the MSM blood ban, however, is that it only affects a specific group in society.
In an effort to reflect widespread student opposition to the ban, Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union (TCDSU) recently launched a campaign against the lifelong ban. “We need more blood”, according to Sam Riggs, TCDSU’s LGBT Rights Officer. Speaking to The University Times, Riggs explained how the union hopes to tackle the blood shortage by lifting what it perceives to be a discriminatory ban. “We are hoping to take a two-pronged approach”, he said. This two-pronged approach centres around a simultaneous media and lobbying campaign.
The media campaign is comprised of posters, which are hanging around campus. They boldly display various statistics arguing why the blood ban should be lifted. According to one such poster, one in four Irish people are likely to require a blood transfusion in their lifetime. The union believes that, by lifting the ban, we can help to ensure these people will get the blood they need. By demonstrating the need for blood, the union is hoping to increase the pressure on the government to lift the ban. After all, according to the IBTS’s website, the purpose of the transfusion service is to provide “a sufficient supply of safe blood to meet the needs of patients”.
The second aspect of the campaign is a petition addressed directly to the Minister of Health. Postcards are currently available in House Six, which can be signed by individual students and dropped in a collection box in the SU Kitchen. “There will be space for the student to sign it and leave their own message, if they wish”, Riggs stated. The flipside of the postcards carry a list of the four main reasons for why the ban should be lifted. The reasons given are: 1) that STIs, STDs and HIV do not exclusively affect men who have sex with men, 2) that it is discriminatory against men who have sex with men, 3) that there is a blood shortage and 4) that, based on best practice, the ban does not make sense. The postcard concludes that continuation of the ban is senseless and implores the government to lift the ban to save lives.
Not only does the MSM ban assume that sexually active gay men are not smart enough to practise safe sex, unlike their heterosexual counterparts, but it also puts out the idea that a sexually active gay man is ‘dirty’
With growing interest in the ban and the foundations on which it stands, many people have labelled the the ban as outdated and unfounded. However, this is not the opinion of the Medical and Scientific Director of the IBTS. Speaking to The University Times by phone, Dr William Murphy highlighted the increased risk of contracting HIV for men who have sex with men. Murphy grounded this claim with three points: that men who have sex with men tend to have sex within a smaller pool of people, that they tend to have more sexual partners “per unit time” and, finally, that the types of sex most often engaged in by men who have sex with men, “ie anal sex”, exposes them to a greater risk of contracting HIV. When questioned whether these points operate from a basis that assumes HIV is a gay disease, Murphy responded: “No, it doesn’t.” As many gay men will now HIV is in no way a homosexual disease at all.
Since the conversation, it was revealed that a medical conference held by the Irish Blood Transfusion Service Board is likely to recommend lifting the lifetime ban.
Dahnan Spurling, Secretary of Trinity’s Q-Soc and self-professed contributor to the TCDSU campaign against the blood ban, is of the opinion that the ban is discriminatory and that it is “a hangover from a very different time”. “You can assume that less than half of the people who are HIV positive are MSM”, according to Spurling, who adds: “If you’re that worried about HIV exposure and HIV in blood transfusions, you shouldn’t be disproportionately affecting men who have sex with men.” Rather, Spurling is of the view that, if a deferral period is required, a deferral period should be applied to everyone, without distinction as to the gender of your sexual partner(s). Instead of targeting MSM, “you should be targeting anyone who has had unprotected sex in the last six weeks. They shouldn’t be donating blood”, he said.
In addition, Spurling does not view the MSM blood ban as representative of societal values, which is ”why [he] takes issue with it”. Societal perception is a point of conflict between Murphy and Spurling. “Part of the problem with lifting the ban”, according to Murphy, “is societal opinion”. Referencing the high rate of HIV among gay males in Dublin in the 1980s, the question that many people ask, according to Murphy, is: “How can we ensure this won’t happen again?” According to him, many people worry that MSM are more likely to introduce HIV into the donor base. As a result, the ban persists.
Spurling, although conceding that Murphy’s claims may reflect reality, did not accept them for legitimate grounds on which to base a lifelong ban. Spurling is convinced that “when the policy, itself, in terms of an outright ban, doesn’t really have any founding in medical fact anymore, society’s perception of it doesn’t really come into account”. Spurling further insisted that, whether or not it reflects current societal opinion, the ban is “emblematic of a time when it was considered a gay disease and an effective plague”. It does not take into account whether or not people are having unprotected sex. “Heterosexuals, on average, have more unprotected sex than homosexuals”, Spurling added.
As well as the arguments focused on blood shortages and discrimination, the human impact of the ban must also be considered. Speaking on the condition of anonymity to The University Times, due to the possible implications of being named, a former Trinity student recalls the personal toll the ban took on him. Having made the decision to donate blood – “blood which would later be declared safe after screening” – this former student was reported to the IBTS for being a so-called MSM. This, he said, had a huge impact on their mental wellbeing and self-perception.
When questioned why he decided to lie about their sexual history and donate blood, the former student defended his decision, saying that “just the thought that my blood may have helped someone a great deal, or potentially saved someone’s life” was reason enough to donate. He continued: “There’s a shortage of blood donors in Ireland, I’m pretty sure. I get texts from the D’Olier St clinic all the time begging me to come back and donate blood. They usually talk about how few donors they have. My blood type is O-, which is the most useful since it can be donated to anyone.”
The mere possibility that screened, safe, ‘perfectly clean’ blood may have come from an MSM was enough for it to be disposed of
For this former student, the ban reflects institutional homophobia. This homophobia is so ingrained that it amazes him how “homophobia, be it indirect or intentional, can reveal itself through the actions of those you once thought to be progressive and accepting”. The person who reported the former student “would pride themselves on being totally liberal and accepting”. While the ex-student points out that the actions of one of his ”friends” were not rooted in homophobia, he admitted that he was disappointed when a summons to the IBTS headquarters in Dublin arrived. “It’s a shame they didn’t realise that the exact nature of the blood ban is homophobic”, he said. The other bans/deferral periods that are in place “do not attack your character”, he said. Not only does the MSM ban assume that “sexually active gay men are not smart enough to practise safe sex”, unlike their heterosexual counterparts, but it also ”puts out the idea that a sexually active gay man is ‘dirty’”, he concluded.
Weeks of self-loathing followed the meeting in Dublin. “For those few weeks, I felt worse about myself because I was gay, a feeling that I thought I had escaped after leaving secondary school and going to Trinity”, they said. Instead of being thanked for his blood donation, he was questioned by a panel of inquisitors as to whether he had ever had penetrative anal sex with another man. There was no distinction made between safe or unsafe sex. The mere possibility that screened, safe, “perfectly clean” blood may have come from an MSM was enough for it to be disposed of. He stated: “Sexuality is far too broad a criteria on which to make a judgement as to how likely someone is to have an STI/contaminated blood.”
Spurling does not see any solution to the MSM blood ban and associated discrimination other than equality for all. When asked whether he thought obligatory STI checks could act as a potential solution, Spurling was sceptical: “Somebody can still lie and say that they are not sexually active and you have no way of proving that.” In addition, Spurling noted the danger that such a measure could have the reverse effect than the one intended. Ultimately, ”you risk reducing the number of donations and not, necessarily, reducing the probability of somebody getting something from a transfusion”.
When asked whether he sees an increase in the amount of blood in Irish blood banks if the ban were to be lifted, Riggs was realistic in his response: “I’m not under the illusion that it’s going to be a save-the-world change.” Despite this, Riggs was hopeful that an increase would be experienced and that that would be a good thing, given the severe shortage of blood that currently faces Irish hospitals and clinics.
Finally, if the ban was lifted, there is evidence to suggest that this would not increase the potential risk to those in receipt of blood donations. Murphy underlined this point: “Countries that have moved from a lifelong ban or a very long ban to a shorter ban have not seen increased incidence of HIV in their blood donations.” He continued: “From that it is easy to infer that they have not increased the risk to patients by moving from a lifelong ban to a deferral period – that’s quite clear.”
