Bloody Gay

I'm scared of needles, in fact I usually do a pretty good job of passing out when one comes near me, but when a leaflet was handed to me with a needle emblazoned on it promoting the giving of blood to 'save lives' I did, for a minute, consider voluntarily offering a vein or two. But I couldn't even if I plucked up the courage to. Unfortunately I'm not allowed to. I'm gay.

I visited the National Blood Service website to try and find out some more information about the 'gay ban' and came across a short questionnaire to determine who is actually eligible to 'save lives' (the phrase beggars can't be choosers springs to mind) and stumbled across a rather unwelcomed question and answer. Q: 'Are you a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man (even if you used a condom)?' To which I clicked yes. A: 'Thank you for your time but it seems that you are not able to give blood. For more information on why men who have sex with men cannot give blood click here'. I didn't click. I didn't need more information. As far as I'm concerned the only reason they can give why gay men cannot give blood is if the person in charge at the National Blood Service organisation is ignorant or a Mormon.

It is quite obvious how strict the transfusion service has to be regarding the blood they receive, but the kind of mass generalisation they seemed to have adopted about gay men is utterly absurd. It is true that there might be a preconceived idea that a lot of gay men are promiscuous, but to tarnish all of us with the same fuchsia pink brush is simply improper. We all have individual life styles and sexual behaviours! And now, in the highly sexualised world we live in, it's evident that straight people are just as promiscuous, possibly even more so than gay men and consequently exposed to HIV at the same levels. Yet they are allowed to give blood. It screams of inconsistency and prejudice.

The word 'unjust' seems completely relevant when you think that, for example, a heterosexual party girl who is in a different club, and in a different bed with a different man every night of the week having unsafe sex who is at 'high risk' of HIV is quite entitled to give blood. A gay man, on the other hand, who is confined to his little cottage on the Isle of Skye who has had only a few sexual experiences in the safest way possible is deemed inappropriate to donate. Double standards much?

Heterosexuals are as much at risk of HIV now than gay men. In fact statistics show that since 1999 the majority of new cases of HIV in this country are found in heterosexuals. According to figures published by the Terrence Higgins Trust, in 2006 approximately 36,400 people living in the UK contracted HIV through heterosexual sex and 59% of all new cases in 2006 were among straight people where as only 32% of new cases in 2006 where among gay men. Putting sexuality aside for just one minute, the statistics continue. At the end of 2006 5.4% of the total number of cases in the UK where among injecting drug users and 1.6% where found in mother-to-baby cases.

It stands to reason then, from the above figures, that the blood transfusion service have some explaining to do. To group gays, drug users and prostitutes together in the 'high risk' band of contracting HIV is bad enough, to not let 'us gays' give blood is now factually and morally inappropriate. The transfusion service have now left themselves quite unpopular with the gay population and it does beg the question: if they had said no to Jews or Muslims giving blood would there be a much bigger and aggressive reaction?

Sexually active or not, safe sex or not, gay or straight... surely as human beings living under the same UK government policies and the same laws we ALL have the same right to give blood if we so wish. Why should being gay mean we are prohibited to do certain things that could potentially save another persons life? I think it might be time for the people responsible to perhaps re asses the rules and to make the appropriate changes... and quick!