[Metrobeans]

B394 - Blood Donation Bill 2011, TSR Government

Blood Donation Act 2011

An Act aiming to alleviate the shortage of eligible blood for blood transfusion, by allowing some men who have had sex with other men to donate blood, unless under specified circumstances.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

Part I: Definitions
(1) For the purposes of this bill ‘sex’ is defined as ‘anal intercourse or oral sexual activity'.

Part II: Blood Donation Regulations
1 Men Who Have Had Sex With Men
(1) It is hereby declared illegal for individuals and organisations to prevent men who have had sex with men from donating blood, unless:
(a) The man who has had sex with another man in question has been diagnosed as being infected with a blood borne transmissible disease before the time of attempted donation.
(b) The man who has had sex with another man in question has been diagnosed with any other medical condition that would make donated blood not fit for purpose.
(c) The man who has had sex with another man is missing from the Blood Donor Register on the day of attempted donation.
(d) The man who has had sex with another man, has had sex with a man less than five years before the day of attempted donation.
(2) The operating practices of National Health Service Blood and Transplant will be amended accordingly.
(3) Any individual or organisation preventing a man who has had sex with another man, who does not meet the criteria set out in 1(a), from donating blood shall be liable to a fine of no more than £5,000.

Part III: Measures to Prevent an Increase in Ineligible Blood Stocks for Transfusion
2 Awareness Raising
(1) A national advertisement campaign will begin three months following Royal Assent, promoting awareness of sexual health, utilising:
(a) Television advertisements.
(b) Radio advertisements.
(c) National and local newspaper advertisements.
(d) Billboard advertisements.
(2) Health professionals shall inform all individuals diagnosed with blood borne transmissible diseases that they are excluded from donating blood.
(3) Health professionals shall inform all individuals undergoing blood tests for blood borne transmissible diseases about the individuals' eligibility for blood donation.
(4) Health professionals shall inform all individuals undergoing blood tests for blood borne transmissible diseases about the blood donation system, and local donation opportunities.
(5) A tender shall be placed for awareness raising work amongst the male homosexual community.
(a) This tender will be open to applications from the voluntary sector only.

3 Blood Screening
(1) All men who have had sex with men wishing to register to become blood donors must undergo blood testing for blood borne transmissible diseases, at least three weeks before date of blood donation.

Part IV: Miscellaneous
4 Short Title and Extent
(1) This Act will be cited as the ‘Blood Donation Act 2011'
(2) This Act extends to England and Wales.

[badger-man]

I'm going to vote aye but part II (d):

The man who has had sex with another man, has had sex with a man less than five years before the day of attempted donation

is, in my opinion, ridiculous and makes this bill almost completely pointless.

[mevidek]

Aye.

[Abiraleft]

My stance on the issue has been confused a bit by the recent change in law which has already lifted the ban, and with a one-year rather than five-year deferral period. I only noticed this while this bill was in cessation; I'm not sure how/if this affects the bill in any way...

[cambo211]

The page Abiraleft links to completely changes the purpose of this bill.

[DayneD89]

I've abstained. This makes MSMs jump through so many hoops it's essentially pointless. I haven't looked into the science and facts behind the HIV risk enough to say whether a change is needed or not, but if a change to allow MSMs to give blood is in the public interest then it should have less hoops I feel. This will be an effective ban on MSMs giving blood, and thus will not make much of a difference, if any difference at all.

[badger-man]

(Original post by Abiraleft)
My stance on the issue has been confused a bit by the recent change in law which has already lifted the ban, and with a one-year rather than five-year deferral period. I only noticed this while this bill was in cessation; I'm not sure how/if this affects the bill in any way...

Exactly. I guess the author felt that they would rather a 5 year wait period rather than 1. Why they decided to make that decision is anyone's guess.

[Abiraleft]

(Original post by badger-man)
Exactly. I guess the author felt that they would rather a 5 year wait period rather than 1. Why they decided to make that decision is anyone's guess.

From what I know, the complete ban was still in effect when this bill was first proposed. At the time, it looked like a progressive move, but now it looks the opposite, tbh. I don't think this is the bill-writer's fault, but I don't think I can support this bill now, as it would effectively be increasing the deferral period.

[badger-man]

(Original post by Abiraleft)
From what I know, the complete ban was still in effect when this bill was first proposed. At the time, it looked like a progressive move, but now it looks the opposite, tbh. I don't think this is the bill-writer's fault, but I don't think I can support this bill now, as it would effectively be increasing the deferral period.

Yep, I have abstained as I know it isn't the author's intention to increase the deferral period but because of recent changes in the rules on blood donation, this bill is now unnecessary.

[Abiraleft]

(Original post by badger-man)
Yep, I have abstained as I know it isn't the author's intention to increase the deferral period but because of recent changes in the rules on blood donation, this bill is now unnecessary.

I will wait a little while to see if there is any reason not to vote No; I will otherwise be against this bill, as it is effectively regressive.

[TheCrackInTime]

I'm sorry but given the recent RL changes, there's no way I'm voting in favour of this. It's a no.

[Thunder and Jazz]

Bill appears to be rendered irrelevant/regressive?? Lol.

[tehFrance]

"The man who has had sex with another man, has had sex with a man less than five years before the day of attempted donation" <<< completely nullifies the bill, even the RL bill is less than five years.

Considering this is a TSR Government bill, I expected more.

[badger-man]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Considering this is a TSR Government bill, I expected more.

I demand a vote of no confidence

[Thunder and Jazz]

(Original post by badger-man)
I demand a vote of no confidence

If you'll stand down for not pointing this out during the reading stage then we could have a vote

[tehFrance]

(Original post by badger-man)
I demand a vote of no confidence

Doesn't matter as they (mainly Labour) will lose the up-coming election

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
If you'll stand down for not pointing this out during the reading stage then we could have a vote

Presuming you are taking about the five year part, it was pointed out I believe... can't remember when but I think it was.

[Thunder and Jazz]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Presuming you are taking about the five year part, it was pointed out I believe... can't remember when but I think it was.

It was? Oh ok then.

[badger-man]

(Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
If you'll stand down for not pointing this out during the reading stage then we could have a vote

In the second reading I did point out that 5 years was far too long. I didn't know about the RL changes to the rules though so we'll call it evens... for now

[xXedixXx]

Aye.