TADHG O'BRIEN
Sir, - We must agree wholeheartedly with Andrew Davison (February 25th) regarding the Irish Blood Transfusion Service's refusal to accept blood donations from gay men.
The reason for the ban, according to the IBTS, is that it accords with Council of Europe guidelines and the American SDA guidelines, which are probably the strictest in the world. However, the Canadian blood bank, which operates to the same strict guidelines, is currently reviewing its policy.
The leaflet from the IBTS states that you should never give blood if you are a male who has ever had sex with another male, "even safe sex using a condom". This is puzzling. The IBTS claims that gay men pose the highest risk of HIV and hepatitis infection, although Department of Health statistics show that the highest risk group for HIV is, in fact, heterosexual women.
Regarding hepatitis, the gay community has a significantly higher percentage of immunisation than the general population due to the efforts of such organisations as Gay Mens' Health Project. Regardless of this, it is our understanding that all blood donations are screened for HIV and hepatitis as a matter of course.
To add insult to injury, the IBTS claims, it is not a right to give blood. Surely it is the right of gay men, if they so wish, to answer the current urgent call for donors from the IBTS, and join in the efforts of fellow citizens in the vital task of reducing the worrying shortage of blood publicly announced by the IBTS?
Supported by TCD's Students' Union and the USI, we held a peaceful protest at the IBTS offices on February 8th to highlight the issue. It was a peaceful protest where no chants were shouted, as we were adamant that we were not attempting to stop anybody from donating blood. The protest received coverage on radio, Dublin newspapers and television, including TV3's evening news, though unfortunately The Irish Times was unable to cover this story unfolding on the far and distant plains of D'Olier Street.
We call on the IBTS to consider re-phrasing their leaflet to exclude sexually promiscuous individuals (which they already do, and this is very relevant), and remove the mention of a specific sexual orientation, which is outdated, no longer factual, and serves only to perpetuate misconceptions and stereotypes. - Yours, etc.,
TADHG O'BRIEN
DENIA YESHUA,
Lesbian, Gay
and Bisexual Society,
Trinity College,
Dublin 2.