[Metrobeans]

B428 - Blood Donation Amendment Bill 2012, TSR Labour & Liberal Democrat

Blood Donation Amendment Act 2012

A bill to amend the Blood Donation Act 2011 to reduce the window period for men who have sex with men from five years to one year, as recommended by the latest review from the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (link).

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:-

1 Window Period Reduction
(1) The Blood Donation Act 2011 will be amended in the following ways:
(a) Section 1.1(d) is hereby repealed.
(b) Following section 1.1(c) the following text shall be added:

Inserted Text

(d) The man who has had sex with another man, has had sex with a man less than one year before the day of attempted donation.

2 Commencement and short title
(1) This act may be cited as the 'Blood Donation Amendment Act 2012'
(2) This Act shall come into force upon Royal Assent

Results of the Amendment

This amendment bill shall make Section (1) of the Blood Donation Act read as follows:

(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 one year 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.

[CyclopsRock]

Go for it!

Is it 1year for female's that get stiffed in the back too?

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
QFA

Could you link me to the Act that you are referring to please? I just want to be completely sure before commenting any further.

[Birchington]

Aye.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Birchington)
Aye.

Or could you link me to the relevant Act of Parliament please?

[Morgsie]

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1786067

The Act in Question

[toronto353]

(Original post by Morgsie)
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1786067

The Act in Question

The numbering is atrocious in the original Bill. Why doesn't this amendment refer to the Parts of the Bill instead? There is no word 'section' in that Bill and this Bill is ambiguous.

May I also ask when the ground breaking Bills are coming from these parties? I agree with the Bill, but these Bills are rather safe from these parties.

[Birchington]

(Original post by toronto353)
May I also ask when the ground breaking Bills are coming from these parties?

How do you define "ground breaking"? The only things that have been broken by the government so far are international laws designed to prevent torture.

[DebatingGreg]

Aye. Simple change in which I cannot see any reason to oppose.

[calumsteele1]

aye.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Birchington)
How do you define "ground breaking"? The only things that have been broken by the government so far are international laws designed to prevent torture.

Well let's be honest, tanning salons, VAT changes and a small amendment, it's hardly ground breaking is it? I look forward to seeing better from the Lib Dems though.

[Birchington]

(Original post by toronto353)
I look forward to seeing better from the Lib Dems though.

I'm also looking forward to more ground breaking, earth shattering legislation from the government.

[TopHat]

(Original post by toronto353)
The numbering is atrocious in the original Bill. Why doesn't this amendment refer to the Parts of the Bill instead? There is no word 'section' in that Bill and this Bill is ambiguous.

It's fairly obvious which part has been amended, given there is a section clearly entitled: "Results of the Amendment". It's not exactly our fault the previous bill was poorly formatted.

May I also ask when the ground breaking Bills are coming from these parties? I agree with the Bill, but these Bills are rather safe from these parties.

So are the governments. You've had transracial adoptions being fixed, and that wasn't even changing any rules, just clarifying them; you've had passports amendments which are so minor as to be inconsequential for the vast majority of society; and an attempt to institute elected mayors in a manner which is so incompetent it would spark a risk of reigniting tensions with the IRA in Northern Ireland.

About the only controversial thing you've submitted that was controversial via intent rather than poor writing was the Qatada motion, which everyone then hammered you for.

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
It's fairly obvious which part has been amended, given there is a section clearly entitled: "Results of the Amendment". It's not exactly our fault the previous bill was poorly formatted.

No you misunderstand me. I'm not criticising you, but just noting that you may want to adapt the numbering as well while you're amending other parts of the Bill.

So are the governments. You've had transracial adoptions being fixed, and that wasn't even changing any rules, just clarifying them; you've had passports amendments which are so minor as to be inconsequential for the vast majority of society; and an attempt to institute elected mayors in a manner which is so incompetent it would spark a risk of reigniting tensions with the IRA in Northern Ireland.

About the only controversial thing you've submitted that was controversial via intent rather than poor writing was the Qatada motion, which everyone then hammered you for.

While we are making bold moves, Labour is playing it safe. I look forward to seeing your future Bills though.

[JPKC]

So:

(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.

For:

(d) The man who has had sex with another man, has had sex with a man less than one year before the day of attempted donation.

I might be being thick here, but doesn't this mean that to give blood as a gay man you'd have to stop having gay sex for a year beforehand?

As one of the relevant SoSes I'm not entirely sure that I support this. If it were repealing an arbitrary discriminatory rule I'd be entirely behind it, however, the guidelines were put in place for good reason: gay men are something like 50 times more likely to have diseases like HIV/AIDS. The thought of any tainted blood being transplanted just horrifies me, I cannot imagine how dreadful it would be for both patient and accidental donor. The clash here is between public health and gay rights and it's really difficult to get the balance right.

Ultimately it all comes down to the accuracy of tests. If you can detect HIV reliably within the first year then I'll vote aye, though I honestly don't think that the situation is ever going to be practical for gay guys giving blood. I'm aware that there are massive blood shortages and a lot of pressure to increase stocks which makes me slightly sceptical of any health service reports as well.

[TopHat]

(Original post by JPKC)
I might be being thick here, but doesn't this mean that to give blood as a gay man you'd have to stop having gay sex for a year beforehand?

Yes. Currently you have to stop for five years beforehand.

As one of the relevant SoSes I'm not entirely sure that I support this. If it were repealing an arbitrary discriminatory rule I'd be entirely behind it, however, the guidelines were put in place for good reason: gay men are something like 50 times more likely to have diseases like HIV/AIDS. The thought of any tainted blood being transplanted just horrifies me, I cannot imagine how dreadful it would be for both patient and accidental donor. The clash here is between public health and gay rights and it's really difficult to get the balance right.

Ultimately it all comes down to the accuracy of tests. If you can detect HIV reliably within the first year then I'll vote aye, though I honestly don't think that the situation is ever going to be practical for gay guys giving blood. I'm aware that there are massive blood shortages and a lot of pressure to increase stocks which makes me slightly sceptical of any health service reports as well.

We provided a link in the Bill's Header, from SABTO, but I'll quote the relevant part:

The review noted that process improvements and automation have significantly
reduced the chance of errors in blood testing such that the modelled risk of a HIV
infectious donation being released into the blood supply is 1 per 4.4 million
donations. The introduction of either a 12 month or a 5 year deferral would not
significantly affect this figure if the number of non-compliant individuals remained
unchanged.

(apologies for odd formatting, copied from a .pdf)

Basically, one year or five years, statistically the difference is insignificant according to the latest and most accurate medical evidence.

[JPKC]

(Original post by TopHat)
Yes. Currently you have to stop for five years beforehand.

Basically, one year or five years, statistically the difference is insignificant according to the latest and most accurate medical evidence.

I'll vote in favour in that case, and recommend that all Coalition members do the same.

[mevidek]

Aye, obviously.

[tehFrance]

No, purely as I am not allowed to religiously.

[TopHat]

(Original post by tehFrance)
No, purely as I am not allowed to religiously.

Of course, the famed Disciples of Thatcher.