BHB Clarifies: Gay Males & Blood Donation

October 11, 2013

In response to questions posed by Bernews readers regarding exactly why the Bermuda Hospitals Board [BHB] did not allow gay males to donate blood, a spokesperson for the BHB has said that, “the standards for eligibility to donate blood are intended to maximize the safety of the blood supply, and not intended to discriminate against sexual orientation.”

The BHB Eligibility Criteria for Blood Donation in Bermuda [PDF] says:

Male donors who have had any sexual contact with another male from 1977 until the present are deferred indefinitely.

When asked to clarify why this policy exists, a BHB spokesperson said: “Bermuda Hospital Board’s mission is to provide a safe and adequate blood supply to the population that we serve. Bermuda Blood Donor Centre adheres strictly to the policies of the United States Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and the American Association of Blood Banks [AABB] for blood donor eligibility at all times.

“Our Blood Donor Centre is an accredited facility by Joint Commission International whose standards are also very clear. The intent of these standards is to maximize the safety of the blood supply; the standards are not intended to send a message to any individual regarding his or her infectious disease status or discriminate against sexual orientation. FDA’s primary responsibility with regard to blood products is to assure the safety of patients who receive these life-saving products.

“There are many factors that can increase someone’s likelihood of having a transmittable disease. The initial questionnaire is intended to identify potential risks, which include travel to certain counties, having tattoos, taking intravenous drugs, and certain sexual activities. Although blood is always tested before it is used, screening individuals at this time reduces the amount of blood that is rejected.”

The BHB policy is in line with the FDA policy, which has come under fire in the United States. According to the FDA website, “Men who have had sex with other men [MSM], at any time since 1977 [the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States] are currently deferred as blood donors.”

In 2011, the policy changed in the United Kingdom, amending the deferral policy for men who have had sex with men from a permanent exclusion to a fixed period deferral of 12 months.

Currently, less than 2% of Bermuda’s eligible population, or about 1100 people, are donors. The World Health Organization [WHO] indicates that in developed countries like Bermuda, about 6% of the population donates.

The Bermuda Blood Donor Centre is responsible for providing a ready supply of life-saving blood to the hospital, which uses about 35 to 45 pints of blood each week. Donated blood is used for cancer patients, mothers and babies, accident victims, surgical patients and other people with anemia.

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (51)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Beyond2 says:

    I wholeheartedly agree with the WHO(World Health Organization, the rules which BHB have to follow, standards for blood donors. It has nothing with sexual orientation, but the safety of the ENTIRE population.

    • markus says:

      Let’s take it a step further. So-and-so sleeps around so she might have AIDS. She can’t donate blood. Maybe we could require blood donators to say how many people they have had sex with since 1977 as well.

    • JD says:

      Just to clarify BHB is currently following the FDA (US) rules.

      Also it has nothing to do with the safety of the entire population, its just an outdated policy (established in 1985- the same year CDs were invented) that the UK decided to update two years ago.

      The US might get around to updating the FDA rules after they reopen their government, raise the debt ceiling and “wholeheartedly” agree that we actually did eveolve from monkeys.

      • Outdated until someone contracts the AIDS virus. When it comes to what is literally a life and death situation it is not the time to be politically correct!

        It is better to be safe than sorry.

  2. Mark says:

    Of course because heterosexuals don’t have unprotected sex….

  3. aceboy says:

    I assume they also exclude addicts who use needles?

  4. Mike Hind says:

    Why not just test people instead of discriminating? Surely that’s safer…

    • Mark says:

      Exactly, test everyone. Some numbers…

      1982-2006
      By Sexual Orientation
      30.5% of HIV cases homosexual
      28.6% of HIV cases heterosexual
      34% of HIV cases intravenous drug users

      By Sex
      76.4% male
      23.6% female

      By Race
      88.9% Black
      11.1% White

      • Hmmm says:

        WOuld also ensure that folks who do have a disease find out, can take precautions to prevent further spreading the disease and more importantly get necessary treatment and support.

      • jredmond says:

        These numbers are really flawed. Just check the CDC website… http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

        Gay males account for 63% of all new infections in the US and 52% of all people living with HIV. Don’t sugar coat it, being a gay male you are exponentially more likely to be HIV positive

        • The Skink says:

          @ jredmond: Well said! This public health statistic has been conveniently overlooked by the powers that be in the U.S and other places. Thank you for sharing this.

        • Mike Hind says:

          You might want to look up what “exponentially more” means.

          • Sandy Bottom says:

            Mike, I hate homophobes as much as you do, but the fact remains that homosexual males appear to have a significantly elevated risk of HIV. It makes sense to try to reduce the risk of passing that along via blood transfusions.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Not saying we shouldn’t try to reduce the risk. But an outright ban, dating back to 1977 is ridiculous.
              There are other ways.

              And the misinformation is on both sides (Again… “exponentially more”? “Statistically more”, perhaps, but exponentially?)

              It’s this kind of language that keeps people afraid.

              • jredmond says:

                Whatever Mike. Try picking apart the facts, not my use of grammar. The fact is you can’t. 52% OF ALL PEOPLE IN THE US WITH HIV ARE GAY MALES. People should be afraid of that fact, especially gay males.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  And thank YOU, for proving my point. “Afraid”.

                  I’m not denying your numbers. I’m pointing out that you were incorrect and in a very wrong way.

                  The FACT is: you were wrong. They are NOT exponentially more likely and to say they are is misinformation.
                  When it comes to sensitive topics like this, it’s important to be correct.

                  • jredmond says:

                    haha. Dude… Seriously? Be sensitive? AIDS is scary and gay males should be afraid of it. Being overly PC about proven statistical facts is the real misinformation. Go argue with somebody who is actually wrong.

              • Sandy Bottom says:

                Mike, you’re arguing about the word exponential?

                Less than 5% of the population are gay males, but they account for 52% of all Hiv and 63% of new cases. Exponential means raised to one power, i.e. Multiplied by itself. Therefore gay males are in fact exponentially more likely to be hiv positive than average.

                It’s not “misinformation” Mike, it’s just a fact. It’s a fact that gay males are exponentially more likely to have hiv than the general population.

      • Thinkthrice says:

        @ Mark – Well considering we’re a largely growing mixed race society I don’t see how one could quantify such rigid statistical data based on race.

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      The sad truth is it comes down to money, the Red Cross blood donor clinic is only funded to collect blood. Testing costs a lot of money, especially if you are testing for multiple diseases.

      I am a long time donor, and I have always found that policy to be antiquated and for too long, in need of updating. It also excludes people who have live in England, I believe this stemmed from the mad cow outbreak decade+ ago. I would hope that if you walked in with test results showing a clean blood screening, they would accept you irregardless of the screening survey, but you would need to ask them about that. However, though I do disagree with there screen survey question, I do not use it as an excuse to not donate, and it would be selfish of anybody to. Donating blood is vital and it shows a sad result that we are so far behind the rest of the developing world when it comes to the percentage of donors. I have always encouraged others to donte and will continue to do so and I look forward to the day when I read the screening again and see that those asinine questions have been removed and updated. The staff at the donor center do great work and I applaud them for their continued work and always look forward to conversing Witt hem while I am there.

      Oh, and you don’t have to like needles to donate, I REALLY HATE them, but I know the brief discomfort I get, helps those who are often in worse. Suck it up Bermuda, just don’t look and give blood.

  5. 2000 jobs? says:

    @ mike hind – please pass that organic meditation, you talking sense man – accept all blood to boost supply, simply test it all

  6. Just One says:

    From what I understand, anyone that admits to having unprotected sex with anyone within a defined time frame is also not an eligible donor. I do believe that it should be across the board for anyone who has had unprotected sex and has not been tested negative for all possible STDs within the last twelve months, not since 1977!

    Let’s also remember that males cannot be or are not routinely tested for HPV (known to cause cervical and other cancers in reproductive organs) and HS2V (Herpes). These two uncurable diseases are also more easily transmitted while using a condom, than any other STD! Sex is risky business no matter what sexual orientation. Education and monogamy (I won’t dare say abstinence) are key!!!

    • Mike Hind says:

      This is the problem I have for it.

      Even monogamous gay men are excluded.

      This stipulation, even though it’s only 36 years old, is archaic.

      • Just One says:

        Completely agree that it needs to be revised and updated…

    • Grizz says:

      @justone….I am a blood donor and have NEVER been asked if I have had unprotected sex in a given time frame

      • Just One says:

        Exactly my point… No consistency… they need to discriminate against any risky behavior…

  7. Takbir Sharrieff says:

    Unsafe lifestyles……./ including the use of Illicit or Illegal Drugs which endanger the Blood Supply at K.E.M.H. of all persons and babies delivered or persons in need of blood..in an emergency./..is a risk to Public Safety..and puts us all in danger..! Bermudians Against Narcotics (B.A.N )Wholeheartedly supports this B.H.B. Policy…!

    • JD says:

      Attendance must have been pretty low at the last BAN meeting for you to try and drum up support using a story about homosexual males donating blood.

      How much has drug use on the island dropped since BAN was formed anyway?

    • Will says:

      You should then educate yourself on the true definition of narcotics. Ive seen your post very anti weed etc;well now it is time you know the truth. Cannabis, cocaine, and many other drugs aren’t actually narcotics at all…about the only class of drugs that are narcotic are the Opiates including heroin and morphine. But you seem uneducated on this matter as you have some how lumped blood donating from homosexuals in with severe drug use..WTF?! Your attempt at making these the same issue is about as worse as the relationship between fried chicken and buses.

  8. A Bloody Mess says:

    So does that mean when they run out of “straight” blood, they have to call upon the blood that’s “tainted”?

    • JD says:

      Well yeah – unless of course you tick the “No gay male blood” box when you get admitted to hospital.

      Just to be on the safe side I always make sure I tick the “Only blood from A list celebrities and decathletes” box.

      I used to ask the nurses for pure Tour de France winner blood, cause my cousin works there and I was in and out all the time with the gunshots, but you can’t be too careful these days.

      • Mike Hind says:

        pure Tour de France winner blood?

        There’s no such thing!

        • Family Man says:

          Its got that “special sauce” in it. Viagra’s got nothing on that Tour de France winner blood.

      • Back-in-the-day-girl says:

        Lol! Love the sarcasm….

  9. Kim Smith says:

    People who lived in the UK during the 1980s have also been restricted from donating blood due to the fear of Mad Cow disease.

    • St Davids says:

      Indeed. @Kim Smith (Oct 11 12:49 PM)

      That is the reason why I was turned away from donating.

  10. It's not as simple as testing everyone says:

    Using CBS (Canadian Blood Services) as an example, every donor is required to answer a questionnaire re things like their sexual orientation, drug use and a number of other things. Then a very small sample is taken to test for things like iron deficiency.

    Then, and only then, can the individual donate blood. There are no mini-pools. Every unit of blood that is extracted is separately tested for a lengthy list of diseases before that blood is sent to the hospitals for use.

    https://www.blood.ca/Centreapps/Internet/UW_V502_MainEngine.nsf/page/Testing?OpenDocument

    • Mike Hind says:

      I don’t understand why it’s not that simple?
      You show an example of just how to do it.

      I don’t get it.

  11. aceboy says:

    People LIE on those forms. How many people would state they are gay on such a form here, it is an invitation to be outed.

  12. A Bloody Mess says:

    And here I thought that donating blood was generally anonymous. Go figure. I guess that means that next we will just have to be careful of accepting organs from the homosexual community, cause the ignorant can only imagine that if they have a gay part inside them it might turn them gay. SMDH

  13. haha says:

    gross i don’t want none of der blood!!

  14. Who can judge? says:

    How many people have donated blood are in what they think are monogamous relationships? Should a married couple who do not use protection be excluded? Who can judge in the surface whether or not they are safe from HIV or AIDS especially as having extra marital affairs may occur.

  15. Kaprice says:

    @ who can judge. You are so right. Nobody is 100 per cent sure of being in a monogamous relationship!

    It is tricky. Yes it makes sense to accept n test all blood but as a few people mentioned-it is costly. The questions are to minimize the need. When I first donated blood years ago I was nervous about If I got a call saying my blood had something in it!I hope this situation gets sorted out and people are not discouraged.

  16. Jim bob says:

    We are going to see more complaints of this nature by homosexuals. This is the downfall of adding sexual orientation to the human rights act. Homosexuals will complain they are being discriminated against based on their human rights with regard to everything now.
    As much as I am not keen on the PLP (or any other party to be honest) if the PLP said they were going to get rid of sexual orientation from the human rights act if they come into government they would have my vote in a heart beat.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Yes. God forbid people speak out against discrimination.
      How DARE they!

  17. Second thought.. says:

    At first when I read this I was for it…But then I thought what if my child needed that blood and the only willing person was a gay man (who didn’t have HIV) what then?

    Someone mentioned it already but the most logical solution to this is to test the blood prior..

    Although there is a time element to it and God forbid that the blood donor gets HIV on Monday and is tested on Tuesday…Not sure how this works but I do remember my doctor telling me you have to get 3 tests that span over a few months…Does this mean the person who got HIV on Monday and Tests on Tuesday (which would come up clean) will slip through the cracks??

    Very troubling scenarios…

    • Mike Hind says:

      It’s not just gay guys who get HIV.
      The danger is still there. The “what if” already exists.

  18. science geek says:

    We all want to be treated equally. But we do not all live our lives the same. By these choices, it has been proven through science and statistics, some people are at a greater risk of acquiring HIV, Hep C, and other blood borne pathogens. Years ago, when people where unintentionally infected through blood transfusions by a completely unknown new virus called HIV, the result was to take further steps to make the blood supply safer. At that time, the time between the infection of the virus to the ability of tests to detect it could be 9 days or two weeks. That meant a donation of so called tainted blood could slip into the system undetected by the tests that were state of the art at that time. Fortunately today advances in technology have changed the ability of the tests to pick up positive much much much sooner. But considertaion has to be given to if and when another new virus comes about that is not known and not tested for. The populations that will be at risk for the known and the unknown blood born diseases remain the same. IV drug users, who may share needles and do not admit or remember it, can directly have blood-blood contact and are a high risk. Unprotected sex and promiscuous behavior are going to seriously spike risk. Heterosexual sex or female to female sex is a much lower risk than male on male sex due to some obvious physiological differences. Simply put, the female body has a few designs and gadgets handed down from mother nature that make it comparatively less risky for them to have sex with a male than for another male to have sex with a male. Go research it, you might not like it, but it is true. Continuing with the unfairness though –blame biology — statistically an infected male is more likely to infect an uninfected female than an infected female infecting and uninfected male. The rules for donation are pretty simple when you think about risk, so stop complaining and trust the experts who are making sure blood if safe. When you need it, you will get a safe product, and no one is going to ask if you are a homosexual patient or a heterosexual patient at that time.