When Thomas Buxereau heard that Australia’s blood supplies were running low due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he was ready to roll up his sleeve and help by taking part in a blood donation drive at his work.
To his disappointment, he found that as a gay man he would be unable to give blood due to the Australian Red Cross Lifeblood service’s policy requiring "men who have sex with men" to abstain from sexual activity for three months before donating.
While Mr Buxereau had been blocked from donating blood in the past due to his sexuality, he had decided to check his eligibility again on the Red Cross website in light of the pandemic’s hit to the blood supply, hoping that the rules had changed.
“I was almost pleasantly surprised initially … they've got this really nice eligibility checker that goes through a whole range of questions, it felt more modern and more appropriate. Then I got to the same question which asked me about, you know, sexual practices," he told SBS News.
"As a result, it was an immediate ‘no’. There was no dialogue … it didn't ask me whether I'd taken part in any risky behaviour or anything like that. It was just, you know, a relationship between a man and a man, and that's it, done. End of story.”
Being barred from donating blood “made me feel horrible … like it was purely discrimination," Thomas Buxereau said. Source: AAP
“It made me feel horrible … like it was purely discrimination … there was no substance, there was no science,” he said.
“The fact that you're a gay male just bans you for three months ... Regardless of whether you engage in safe sex.
"A label was put on, and as a result, it was the end, the end of the conversation.”
Mr Buxereau was frustrated that he was not able to donate life-saving blood to help the community in a time of need.
“There are people that can benefit from my blood donation. And it didn't make sense as a nation, why would you prevent someone who can help someone who's got safe blood? I didn't get that. I still don't get that.”
Campaign to end 'gay blood ban'
LGBTIQ+ rights advocate Rodney Croome has been campaigning for an end to the “gay blood ban” for the past 15 years.
"The current ban on gay blood donation effectively sends a message that gay men are a threat to public health, and that's no longer an appropriate message to send, if it ever was, in Australian society," Mr Croome told SBS News.
He is involved in a new petition from Just.Equal Australia, a national lobby and advocacy group representing the interests and priorities of the LGBTIQ+ community, titled.
The petition calls on the Australian Red Cross Lifeblood Service and the Therapeutic Goods Administration "to institute a new donor policy that screens potential donors for their individual risk, not the gender of their sexual partner”.
“The current policy, imposing an abstinence period on gay, bisexual, transgender and gender non-conforming Australians who have sex with men, limits the supply of safe blood, and stigmatises gay, bi, trans and non-binary people as a threat to public health,” it reads.
“Our petition aims to highlight the fact that Australia is ignoring international research and best practice when it comes to a safe and fair blood supply,” Mr Croome said.
Lifeblood's current "deferral" policy is stigmatising and discriminatory, he said.
“The current policy of banning all men and trans women who have sex with men from blood donation is obviously discriminatory because it bans an entire group of people from providing an essential public service.
“But worse than that, it stigmatises all gay, bi and trans people as a threat to public health.”
Australia 'falling behind'
The petition follows a commissioned by Just.Equal Australia that reviews current data and modelling and compares bans on gay blood donation, such as Australia's, with a policy of screening donors for their individual risk.
“Australia, interestingly enough, was the first country to remove a lifetime ban on donations from people who are deemed to be ‘men who have sex with men’, and other countries then followed suit,” report author Dr Sharon Dane told SBS News.
Dr Sharon Dane says the latest research shows the blood ban is unnecessary. Source: SBS News
“So the risk is based on your sexual behaviour, rather than the group of people you belong to. So in this instance, while Australia was a leader initially, it is now falling behind others.”
The latest international research shows there is no meaningful risk attached to lifting the current abstinence requirement for blood donation by men, and trans women, who have sex with men, and replacing it with a new policy of screening donors for their individual sexual safety, Dr Dane said.
"Modelling suggests this would actually increase the amount of safe blood available to those in need of blood products."
Individual risk assessments rejected
Lifeblood told SBS News that individual risk assessments are “not the safest approach at this time” in Australia.
“In Australia, a man has to wait until three months after their last sexual contact with another man before they can donate blood. This is because the latest Australian data shows there's still a much higher risk of newly acquired HIV infections amongst men who have sex with men,” a Lifeblood spokesperson said.
“While we test all blood donations, even the very best testing [which Lifeblood uses] can’t always pick up early infections. So, we ask people to wait before donating so we can ensure recipients of blood are as safe as possible from life-changing infections like HIV.
“We considered individual assessments as part of our recent review, but they require a more even distribution of new HIV infections across a country’s whole population.”
Lifeblood told SBS News it would “continue to monitor and review the evidence in relation to individual risk assessment” and that the organisation is “exploring other pathways to broaden donor eligibility and hope to be able to share more about these in the near future”.
Mr Croome said that while it is “true the majority of new HIV infections are among gay men” what Lifeblood “fails to note is that the overwhelming majority of gay men do not have, and will never have HIV, because they have safe sex and/or they are monogamous”.
The pandemic has seen blood supplies take a hit. Source: Red Cross Lifeblood
“This is precisely the distinction that individual risk assessment is designed to draw, between those who are safe to give blood and those who aren’t, by asking about sexual activity that actually causes risk,” he said.
“That distinction applies equally to heterosexual people who may not only be at risk of contracting and passing on HIV but also other blood-borne diseases.”
Just.Equal is interested to talk to the Red Cross Lifeblood Service about the options it is considering, but believes the only way to ensure a safer, less discriminatory blood supply is individual risk assessment, Mr Croome said.
An Australian Red Cross blood donor centre. Source: Australian Red Cross Lifeblood
“The TGA understands Lifeblood currently considers that [the] individual risk assessment approach is not the safest approach at this time in Australia. This is due to an uneven distribution of new HIV infections across the Australian population,” a TGA spokesperson said.
“Lifeblood are exploring other pathways to broaden donor eligibility. The TGA will consider any submission from a sponsor to change its approach to the deferral period, based on data to support the safety of such a change.”
