And on the subject: http://bomgay.blogspot.com/ Sunday, September 18, 2005 Tumhara khoon khoon hai aur hamara khoon...? Or why is blood donation by gay men unwelcome? I started donating blood in my first year of college (in the mid-'80s). This became an annual practice for five years since the college had yearly blood collection drives. There was little awareness of HIV then, among people generally and I myself was pretty ignorant. I also donated blood a couple of times after graduation as a 'replacement donor' when dad was hospitalized twice (the first time in a Mumbai hospital and the second in a suburban nursing home).
The second time it involved traveling to a blood bank in a distant Mumbai suburb. On both occasions I had to fill in a form that more or less has a standard questionnaire about the donor's previous medical history. I am not sure about the first instance but the second time (at the blood bank) one of the questions was about (I do not remember the exact verbiage or the year in the question) whether the (male) donor has had sex with a man after 197x. Was the bloodbank or the government (presuming that was the govt.'s idea to put that question) expecting an honest answer to that from anyone? Well, I gave an honest answer. I admit I was a little scared -- not of being outed -- but of being prosecuted under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code for "unnatural sex". I got away with it the first time and the next few times that the bloodbank requested my blood (they would call me every few months--I have one of the rarer blood groups). Someone at the bloodbank actually noticed my answer one time, it seems. They did not take my blood that time. A few weeks later they called me again and I told them that I did not want to come because they have rejected my blood for being gay. Apparently, the person on the other end of the phone line was as shocked as the one who had noticed my affirmative answer previously, and hung up without a word. I did not donate blood since then, until last year, at my workplace. In spite of being handed a list of (dos and) don'ts that listed sex between men (there was no mention of this on the questionnaire, though). I do not know what the current official policy is blood donation by 'practicing' gay men, but I was happy that I could help out a patient at a major Bombay hospital who needed blood recently, without killing myself about being dishonest--there was no question this time about my sexuality! Stupid bloodbank or enlightened policy? It may be true that anal sex without a condom is high-risk behavior as far as HIV and sexually transmitted infections are concerned. But isn't it also true that peno-vaginal sex without condoms are almost as unsafe? So why stop gay men from donating blood when we hear of chronic blood shortages in this country? Incidentally, methinks screening donated blood for HIV is redundant because of the 'window period'. Many countries ban blood donation by gay men (does anyone know India's position?), but recently this has been challenged in Tasmania, Australia, as Fridae.com reported last month. Perhaps we are some years away from decriminalizing homosexuality in India and the blood donation ban. Meanwhile, gay men will die from lack of access to information on HIV and health resources. And heterosexuals will die from lack of gay blood. 2009/7/15 Vikram D <vg...@yahoo.co.uk>: > > > HT ran a story today on how Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi has banned > homosexuals from donating blood: > > http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=11b758bb-541e-462c-81a5-d2e1b459b1bf&Headline=Blood+banks+outlaw+gay+donors+despite+shortages > > The story is drawing attention both within the community and the media and > it looks like it may be taken further, but some caution is needed because > the issue is a bit more complicated than it seems. I've spoken to Ramki in > Chennai whose background in Public Health and the US gives him some > knowledge about this, and here's some relevant information and possible > response: > > - The hospital's blood ban quite probably follows the norms for blood > donation laid down by the US's Food and Drug Administration, which lays down > the public health guidelines in such cases. This guideline has been in place > since the start of the AIDS plague in the Seventies, and has never been > lifted, although there has been opposition to it, both outside and within > the FDA. The FDA votes to sustain the ban have become increasingly narrow > and its possible it might change at some point. > > - The FDA does have some logic on it's side. Donated blood is always tested > for HIV, but only with an antibody test which shows presence of the virus > around three months after infrection. So there is a possibility of infected > blood that is within the window period passing the test. Given the lifelong > consequences of AIDS, from a public health point of view this does suggest > that the authorities should be cautious over here, and one way of doing so > would be to ban high risk groups for HIV/AIDS which does include > homosexuals. > > - The point where the FDA ban does become discriminatory though is that this > rigour is applied more strongly to homosexuals than to heterosexuals, who > could well be within the window period as well. A more stringent policy > would involved very detailed tests on people's sexual history regardless of > their sexual orientation. (Ideally, I guess, there should be molecular tests > for the virus rather than antibody tests on all blood donated, but this > would probably have major cost and time implications). > > - Our guess is that the Delhi hospital has applied this American policy > directly, perhaps in reaction to the 377 judgment (the HT report doesn't > make it clear if this was in place before). But whenever it was done its a > policy that doesn't make too much sense because: > (a) in India, unlike the US, the vast majority of HIV affected people are > heterosexual > (b) the stigma attached to homosexuality means that people are unlikely to > be honest about their sexual preference, so its a pointless question. > (c) its not a requirement by the Indian medical authorities, which probably > have a realistic view of the matter, so the Delhi hospital does seem to be > overstepping the limits in a homophobic way. > > - This is just a suggestion, but a possible recommendation for hospitals who > want to be ultra cautious is that they should ask detailed questions about a > subject's sexual history with relation to multiple partners, periodicity and > protected or unprotected sex, but should make it clear at the start that > there is no moralistic judgment involved here and that the fact of the > partners being male or female will make no difference to the decision about > whether to accept the blood. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > -- My blog's at: http://queerindia.blogspot.com You can leave me a voice message from any phone at http://www.jaxtr.com/nitinkarani No call charges apply.
