Lifting the gay blood-giving ban- "a step in the right direction", but not there yet

This news woke me at seven this morning. In my dozing, bleary state I acknowledged it with a smile and remember thinking that it was pretty monumental, given that yesterday there was no mention that such a decision was being made and that it was the fourth or fifth item on the bulletin. For almost thirty years any man who is gay and sexually active has been banned from donating blood, and finally the realisation has dawned on the health care professionals constantly pleading for more donors to step forward that "the ban could no longer be justified", according to the BBC.

I read up on the story on the BBC website, and have so say that while it makes an excellent soundbyte, the fact that "the life-long ban on gay men donating blood has been lifted" doesn't really address or cover the story. There's much more to it, and it's not necessarily as huge a leap forward as is perhaps being made out by "snippet news." It's worth reading the BBC story before reading any further here- it can be found at:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14824310

Done that? Read on-
From November gay men in England,Scotland and Wales will be allowed to give blood. But only on the condition that

And Northern Ireland (Norn Iron) is expected to make a decision soon.

The worry is that there is still a division between heterosexual and homosexual donors in the way that they are treated.

Now, it's effectively saying that gay men may donate, so long as they are chaste for a year. Which seems an unreasonable amount of time, and frankly for a lone pint it strikes me as inefficient. A year of chastity and then multiple donations the standard sixteen weeks apart would mean four pints of blood per two years of chastity, while heterosexuals can donate eight pints over two years and still have a sex life. Does it seem fair to you? And does it seem worth it, at a time when the NHS are scrabbling for as many donations as possible? The BBC article ran the following:

Sir Nick Partridge, chief executive of the Terence Higgins Trust, a sexual health charity, said the new rules were "necessary, fair and reasonable".

However, he said it was impossible to say how many men would actually be able to start donating blood as "the vast majority of gay men are still [sexually] active".

Now I know the arguments that oral and anal sex carry a higher risk of infection through the indelicate fact that tearing can occur on the skin. And I know that, in terms of evolution, that is because the "evolved and appropriate" orifice for insertion is in a female boday. I'm not interested in the nature/ nurture, are they born that way debate- for what it's worth I'm fairly sure that it's a prefectly natural orientation- but in terms of evolution hundreds of thousands of years are against the gay man. Does this justify such a restriction? Not really, I don't think so. Anal sex, and certainly oral sex, have been demonised since the 1980s as high-risks of infection with shaky reasoning- a womanising playboy may have recieved oral sex from a double-figure of women in one year and be allowed to give blood while a monogamous gay man in a year long relationship would not. There are so many nuances that could be added to the vetting process, option questions I'd like to see added in to get better detail and establish who can and cannot give blood.

From the BBC article:

chief executive Ben Summerskill said there would still be tighter controls on low-risk gay men than on high-risk heterosexuals.

"A gay man in a monogamous relationship who has only had oral sex will still automatically be unable to give blood but a heterosexual man who has had multiple partners and not worn a condom will not be questioned about his behaviour, or even then, excluded."

Of course, such questions may be called for to be implemented for everyone so as not to discriminate, which would cause problems. The NHS constantly bleats about its shortage of blood donation, so I doubt it would never in a million years implement stringent questions for all orientations. How many 20-30 year old males with "player" lifestyles or simply on the dating scene in the promiscuous modern era would end up being turned away, knocking overall donations? Yet the superficial slackening of restrictions with no real raise in attendance is a huge leap forward?

According to the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs, if there were no limit on sexually active gay men donating there would risk of one infection in every 3.48 million donations. One in 3.48 million. I'd say, given the advances mentioned in the BBC article in blood testing, that that's a pretty good set of odds, wouldn't you? If there's a system that detects infections such as HIV 99.9% of the time, it would catch pretty much every one in 3.48 million that falls into the stockpile. And if there were perhaps more stringent and thorough checks put in place for all blood, why not lift the chaste period? Perhaps one or two terms of blood-giving, 16 or 32 weeks? That would be seen as less discriminatory and probably quite reasonable, I feel. Of course, it may still be viewed as unnecessary by some but I doubt any perfect solution can be found soon.

It's a very good decision, finally alleviating the culture of fear and demonisation of certain prospective, healthy potential donors, but will it stop there? The only way that this can have a very good outcome is if it is the beginnign of a series of steps, not just a token gesture.