CANADA’S BLOOD DONATION BAN: Science vs. Bigotry

An update to this original story is posted at the ending of the article.

“Blood donation is not a right…” 

This is a quote from Graham Sher, the current Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Blood Services, speaking about the Ontario Superior Court’s decision after a challenge was brought about questioning the constitutionality of banning gays from donating blood. With the rejection of this challenge, the non-governmental organization is now allowed to uphold its standing, albeit bigoted, to reject any donor-based solely on sexual orientation.

The Court concluded that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply in this particular case as the CBS (Canadian Blood Services) is not a government entity, and as such, they are allowed to do business as they see fit.

This all stems from a case that originated with another civil suit between the CBS and a gay man named Kyle Freeman (CBS v. Freeman 2004). Freeman was a frequent donor going back to the early 90’s. The CBS sued him for negligent misrepresentation after lying about both his sexual orientation and his sexual status on this donor medical history form. Freeman fought back and claimed that the policy wasn’t based on any actual scientific data and violated his privacy rights, among other things. The Court rejected the appeal and found him liable in the end for $10,000. The CBS was initially seeking $100,000 in damages. Likely in an attempt to fund CBS’ outstanding liabilities from their own previous many tainted-blood scandals.

As Justice Catherine Aitken said in her 184-page written decision, “gay and bisexual men may feel a loss of dignity, a feeling of marginalization, a sense of disappointment, and a sense of injustice when denied the opportunity to give blood.”

I am now left to wonder, does this go beyond “just a loss of dignity” in the light of this discriminatory stance by the CBS, or does this frame a contest between ‘safety and the ‘rights’ of an already marginalized and disadvantaged group of our society? And will echoes of this decision reverberate in the halls of other organizations, paving the way for even more intolerant policies to be created by any number of organizations citing obstinate and fallacious science?

Thanks to the Court’s decision, this outrageous organization is allowed to continue its policy on rejecting gay men who have had sex since 1977, clumsily claiming that they are a “greater risk [for]” tainted blood entering the supply chain of available blood products. While at first glance, some may deduce that this is ‘reasonable,’ but statistically speaking, it isn’t backed up by any science or data.

This year, two Canadian doctors wrote an article that appeared in the Canadian Medical Association Journal claiming that the ban on donations from homosexual men is “outdated and unfair”. Dr. Wainberg and Dr. Gilmore argued that the fears of the potential for HIV transmission are unfounded based on the efficacy of the tests that all donated blood goes through.

“With today’s HIV tests, it is almost impossible for tests to produce false results.” They also argued that it is hypocritical that heterosexuals with multiple partners only face one-year deferrals while homosexual men must suffer through thirty-three-year deferrals. According to a CBS report, the estimated risk of undetected HIV-positive blood entering the supply chain is one in eight million.

“The 1983 ban has hung on so long, unfortunately, because many people became infected by HIV in the early 80s through blood transfusions, and they have mounted continuing pressure on the blood agencies to maintain the ban,” Wainberg said in a news release. In this writer’s opinion, anyone that is likely to increase the risk of introducing tainted blood into the supply should face deferrals, regardless of their sexual orientation. If a straight man can donate after have been with multiple partners, why can’t a homosexual man?

HIV/AIDS Isn’t a “Gay Disease.”

It is a horrible virus that strikes down young and old alike. Men, women. Blacks and whites. Gay men and women, and of course, heterosexuals. It is a merciless killer oblivious to it’s victim’s sexual orientation, age, gender, or race. Over ninety-five percent of homosexuals and bisexuals in Canada are not HIV-positive; as such, excluding all of those potential donors “puts a huge burden on blood agencies and the blood supply,” the authors of the CMAJ article.

The AIDS rate in Canada is about .4% of the population. If you were basing this purely on science, let’s extend the ban to include aboriginal men between the ages of 25 and 49, a segment of the population over-represented in the AIDS statistics and demonstrating the fastest growing rate of HIV/AIDS in Canada.

As an Aboriginal Canadian man, you are 3.6 times more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than the general population. Let’s also extend it to all white men in the same age group, as they have commanded the largest ethnic group since the beginning of testing in 1983 with HIV. Thirty-five percent of HIV-positive heterosexual men are unaware of their infection, yet they can still donate blood. Approximately 1% of Canada’s population is gay or considers themselves gay, a number that is still considerably lower than infected heterosexual men unaware of their infection.

According to a Public Health Agency (Canada) report, approximately 51% of people infected with HIV-AIDS were homosexuals. A number only marginally higher than that of heterosexual men. And though gay men accounted for the most significant proportion of HIV-positive test results, the increase between the periods accounting for 1998 through to 2007 was about 29.7%, and straight men in that same period saw a rise of 22.1%. A number that is just frightening as now this is your primary source of blood products. Yet the CBS still rejects healthy gay men and freely allows infected straight men to donate.

This policy by the Canadian Blood Services is undoubtedly based entirely on bigotry and junk science. It is blatantly reactionary. In an attempt to soothe the nerves of Canadians, after the devastating Hepatitis-C scares and scandals which rocked our nation in the 80’s and 90’s, their callous and cowardly attempt to prevent a segment of the population from donating is simply the CBS offloading the blame of their inadequate screening and testing on to the gay community.

They are in effect saying, “our blood is safe, it’s gay free!” Gay-free equals safe. This is a ridiculous notion, and it needs to be addressed.

“Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban,” a quote from Senator John Kerry (US) speaking about a similar ban in the United States earlier this year. This antiquated policy is now under review by the Executive and Legislative branches of government in the United States. Even the FDA is asking for a review of the ban.

Hospitals go without vital blood products because governments and private blood services refuse to look at current studies on the efficacy and reliability of the two HIV/AIDS tests run on all blood products before they are shipped out to area hospitals. While a concerned and under-educated majority of the population see this ban as protecting their supply of such products, it, in fact, will probably leave them in demand and without the necessary healthy blood that may someday actually save their life.

The government is quick when it wants to be, though, when insufficiently motivated, it moves at a glacial pace. Over the past fifteen years, the CBS has spit in the eye of generosity and altruism in a time that it desperately needs to be encouraged, celebrated, and taken advantage of. The Canadian Blood Services has spent the past decade being willfully obtuse, proffering bogus data to anyone who may accept it as gospel, and waging a PR-war and aiming their seasoned flack-men at an already beaten upon minority. It’s time to reignite the still-burning embers under the feet of the Liberal-regime. If a man, straight or gay, has blood to give and is safe, let them.

UPDATE: This article was initially written in 2010. Graham Sher is still the chief executive officer of Canadian Blood Services and has been since 2001. The ban on blood from sexually active gay men is still in place in Canada, in large part because of the lobbying efforts of Sher and others on the Board of Directors for the CBS. After the shooting massacre in Orlando, FL, it is being reported by some unconfirmed sources that one blood bank, “OneBlood” in the same city as the shooting, lifted the ban after seeing the overwhelming support. Northern Ireland is lifting the ban on gays and bisexuals from donating blood after careful review of rates of infection and safety protocols. The United Kingdom lifted the ban five years ago. A Northern Ireland High Court judge said of the ban, “[it was] infected by apparent bias.” The federal government is currently lower or even possibly eliminating the ban on blood donation. Since taking office, the Liberal government has hinted at following the rest of the Western countries, which have long since removed such unnecessary and callous bans. Dylan Robertson reports via DAILYXtra that “Health Canada confirms it received Canadian Blood Services’ proposal on March 30, 2016…”

UPDATE: Since 2019, a three-month deferral period for gay and bi men donating blood was implemented throughout Canada. When contacted for comment, the Canadian Blood Services denied any blood ban, even though a three-month blackout period still exists. They would not comment further.

• I DIDN’T PLAN TO BECOME A TEACHER: The Students Who Made Me Stay
• JUSTICE ENDS WHERE POLICING BEGINS: The Shameful History of Policing The Gay and Trans Community in Canada
• RAISED BY PLACES UNSEEN: The Quiet Way Borneo Found Me
• ALONE AGAINST THE SYSTEM: Fighting Police Misconduct in Ontario Means Surviving It
• PART 3 – NO PERMISSION NEEDED: What Was Once Shame Has Become Pride