UK Lib Dems Back Complete Repeal of Gay Blood Ban


The Liberal Democrats, UK coalition government partners with the Conservatives, voted this week at the party’s conference in Birmingham on a motion saying that the UK’s recently announced one-year deferral period on gay men donating blood, which will replace a permanent ban, is still discriminatory.

Earlier this month the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissue and Organs announced that it had determined there would be no significant risk to blood recipients if the ban was shortened to a one year deferral period — meaning gay men can donate if they have not had sex with another man in the past twelve months.

The year deferral, health authorities argue, is still necessary because there is a period of about twelve months in which new HIV and hepatitis B infections can be very difficult to detect.

While many greeted this change as a step in the right direction, there was also condemnation that the ban still singles out gay men regardless of whether they are in a committed relationships and have practiced safe sex. By the same token, critics say the ban does not examine the sexual history of heterosexuals who are allowed to give blood without such restrictions.

This is an issue that the Liberal Democrats have now voted to push the Lib Dem-Conservative government to tackle.

From Pink News:

According to ePolitix, Liberal Democrat MP Stephen Gilbert said: “Millions of men up and down the country could be potential blood donors and many of them wish to help people in need by donating blood.

“They are prevented from doing so by the stigma that all men who have sex with men engage in disproportionally risky behaviour.

“When it comes to donating blood, the safety of those receiving transfusions must always be paramount.

“Rather than issuing blanket bans, decisions should be based on an assessment of the risk which the behaviour of an individual poses regardless of whether they sleep with men or women.”

West Lothian graduate Dij Davies told delegates that he felt the deferral period was just “a ban by another name” and spoke of his own personal experience of the ban.

From The Guardian:

Davies shared with the audience his own experience of being prevented from donating blood for a life-saving transfusion to his mother because of his sexuality. The son of a friend who served in the Metropolitan police gave his blood, alongside a number of fellow officers who offered to help. “But I wasn’t allowed to donate. Her own son. I wasn’t even asked – all because I am gay,” he said.

He cited the case of a 74-year-old man who had donated blood 984 times because he had an antibody in his plasma that stopped babies dying from a form of severe anaemia. “If he was gay, 2.2 million babies would now be dead,” he said.


“The new rules are better – but they are still fundamentally flawed and do not adequately safeguard the blood bank,” he told delegates. “The deferral does not take into account whether men who have sex with men are using a condom or not; it doesn’t separate those in a relationship from those who engage with casual partners; and, crucially, it asks no such questions of the heterosexual population at all.”

The Liberal Democrat motion on the issue estimates that between 1 and 2 million extra people could be eligible to give blood should the rules change.

The motion calls on the lifetime ban and the 12-month deferral to be lifted and new criteria be drawn up to assess individual risk factors and not blanket target groups. Speakers at the conference called such restrictions “daft” and “unscientific.”  The motion also calls for improved blood screenings.

Meanwhile, the lifetime ban on gay blood donors is set to end November 7.


Related Reading:

Equal Visitation Rights in Hospitals Boosted

HRSA Gives $248,000 to LGBT Health Institute

Appeals Court Preserves Arizona Same-Sex Health Benefits

Image used under the Creative Commons Attribution license, with thanks to mattbuck4950.


Lilithe Magdalene

I would recon gay men are way more careful and discriminate in their sexual behaviors than heterosexuals. The ban should be banned. Even this one year waiting period - by their argument EVERYBODY'S blood is a potential carrier for hep b and HIV, if they are having sexual congress with anybody other than a devoted spouse/partner(s) or not having sex at all.

K s Goh
KS Goh6 years ago

Thanks for the article.

Silvia G.
Silvia G6 years ago

So absurd!! If the blood is fine to use it, then use it!! If someone is dying and needs a blood transfusion I don't think that person minds whose blood is that.

Richard S.
Past Member 6 years ago

What we need is discrimination by clinical screening, not by social stereotype. If the blood's clean, then use it.

Penny C.
penny C6 years ago


William Y.
William Y6 years ago

Sometimes there is too much caution. I used to give blood regularly since my blood type B-Neg.
After returning from Vietnam, I could no longer give blood since, according to someone, I have no idea who, certain strains of malaria can lie dormant for more than 20 years. I have not attempted to give blood since, too much humiliation. I can see what this is all about and just as insane. AIDS is not just a disease of gays, and all gays do not carry HIV. It is more discrimination.

Marilyn L.
Marilyn L6 years ago

Sorry I'm just not there yet.

Donna Pulous
Donna Pulous6 years ago

Anyone who is disease free should be able to give blood, regardless of their sexual orientation, jeez, wake up people!!!

Jane H.
Jane H6 years ago

thanks for this informative article----there is a move-on here to end discrimination against gay men giving blood, too. Because, after all, heteros get AIDS, too. Also, every time one gives blood, it is tested for HIV
I am a regular blood donor, too!!

Kirsten Spencer
Kirsten Spencer6 years ago

Enlightening article, thank you