[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(a) Part 2.1(d) is hereby repealed.
(b) Following Part 2.1(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.

(c) Part 3.3 is hereby repealed.

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

Rationale

The Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO) conducted a review in April 2011 on the eligibility criteria of men who have sex with men (MSM). They concluded that donations should be accepted from MSM donors if they have abstained from 'sex' for a period of 12 months or more, as the modelled risk of a HIV infectious donation being released into the blood supply is 1 per 4.4 million donations, and that a window period reduction from five years to one year would not significantly affect this figure. Further to this, none of the handful of HIV transmissions in the UK has been through errors of testing: all have been window period cases and occurred prior to 2002 and prior to the introduction of HIV NAT screening.

Part 3.3 of the Blood Donation Act 2011 requires eligible MSM donors to provide a blood sample three weeks before donation. These samples are currently used to detect bloodborne diseases such as Hepatitis B (HBV), Hepatitis C (HCV) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). However, all UK blood services currently screen blood samples using a triplex HIV/HCV/HBV NAT assay on pools of samples, and it is a legal requirement for blood samples to be collected during all donations so that bloodborne diseases can be tested for. As a result, a MSM donor who has abstained from sex for a one year period or more is classified as low-risk, and it is therefore unnecessary for them to be tested three weeks before providing a blood donation as the same blood sampling test is carried out during the time of donation, and SaBTO argues that any extensions on the one year window period (whether it is an additional three weeks or four years) offers no statistical significance on the modelled risk of potential infection.

Notes

Part 2.1(d) currently states: 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.

Part 3.3 currently states:
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.

Results of the Amendment

This amendment bill shall make Part II (2) of the Blood Donation Act read as follows:

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 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.

[LPK]

(Original post by Metrobeans)
x

Hey,

The notes field is missing some of the info.

Can it be edited to the following please?

Notes

Part 2.1(d) currently states:

(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.

Part 3.3 currently states:

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.

[toronto353]

Agreed, but why don't you sort out the atrocious numbering of the original Bill as well in this amendment?

[mevidek]

Aye.

[Mr Dangermouse]

Aye

[LPK]

(Original post by toronto353)
Agreed, but why don't you sort out the atrocious numbering of the original Bill as well in this amendment?

Is it really worth it? I found the numbering to be quite problematic to work with at first, but Part I and II (which will be the only active parts of the bill if this amendment passes) aren't incomprehensible either. You can still understand what the bill is legislating on without the numbering being the most clearest in the world.

The only currently active clause in Part III is being repealed, and the rest of it expired after the initial 3 months of the bill originally being approved. Admittedly I could have just suggested repealing the whole of Part III, but at the time of drafting this I was focused more on trying to summarise the main jist of the findings in the SaBTO report so that people can be in a position to make an informed decision without having to go and read a 74 page report.

I agree that the numbering in the original bill could be clearer, but this bill is more about altering a bill in light of scientific recommendations, rather than amending it to make it look more pretty on the eyes.

[toronto353]

(Original post by LPK)
Is it really worth it? I found the numbering to be quite problematic to work with at first, but Part I and II (which will be the only active parts of the bill if this amendment passes) aren't incomprehensible either. You can still understand what the bill is legislating on without the numbering being the most clearest in the world.

The only currently active clause in Part III is being repealed, and the rest of it expired after the initial 3 months of the bill originally being approved. Admittedly I could have just suggested repealing the whole of Part III, but at the time of drafting this I was focused more on trying to summarise the main jist of the findings in the SaBTO report so that people can be in a position to make an informed decision without having to go and read a 74 page report.

I agree that the numbering in the original bill could be clearer, but this bill is more about altering a bill in light of scientific recommendations, rather than amending it to make it look more pretty on the eyes.

Amending the numbering will make it easier to refer to in the future should we need to amend it/ refer to it again. It's not about looking pretty.

[DebatingGreg]

Aye!

[Rakas21]

Aye.

[Lipvig]

Aye

[thunder_chunky]

Aye!

[jesusandtequila]

Just a note, I believe when repealing it is standard practice to refer to sections, not parts of the Act.

[toronto353]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Just a note, I believe when repealing it is standard practice to refer to sections, not parts of the Act.

The original Bill's numbering is absolutely awful and it would be difficult to tell what section it is referring to if this Bill were to refer to sections.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by toronto353)
The original Bill's numbering is absolutely awful and it would be difficult to tell what section it is referring to if this Bill were to refer to sections.

But referring to part 3.3 means nothing, and therefore repeals nothing. If the original legislation is nonsensical, you need to make sense of it whilst amending it. Using bad old legislation as an excuse for bad new legislation doesn't really cut it.

[toronto353]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
But referring to part 3.3 means nothing, and therefore repeals nothing. If the original legislation is nonsensical, you need to make sense of it whilst amending it. Using bad old legislation as an excuse for bad new legislation doesn't really cut it.

This is why I would like to see the whole numbering amended first so that this amendment then makes sense and can be referred to properly.

[RoryS]

Aye

[barnetlad]

Aye, as a blood donor.

[Metrobeans]

This has gone to a third reading.