[Metrobeans]

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

Blood Donation Act 2012

A bill to implement the latest recommendentations from the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (link) so that men who have sex with men (MSM) can donate blood after a one year window period.

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 Repeal
(1) The Blood Donation Act 2011 is hereby repealed.

2 Men Who Have Had Sex With Men Regulations
(1) For the purposes of this bill ‘sex’ is defined as ‘anal intercourse or oral sexual activity'.
(2) 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.

3 Implementation
(1) The operating practices of National Health Service Blood and Transplant will be amended accordingly.
(2) Any individual or organisation preventing a man who has had sex with another man, who does not meet the criteria set out in Section 2, from donating blood shall be liable to a fine of no more than £5,000.
(3) It is the responsibility of health professionals to inform individuals of their eligibility to donate blood.

(a) This includes informing individuals of any detection of blood borne transmissible diseases in blood screenings.

4 Commencement and Short Title
(1) This act may be cited as the 'Blood Donation 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.

Notes

It was noted during the previous bill (The Blood Donation Amendment Act 2012) that the numbering used in the Blood Donation Act 2011 made it difficult to fully understand what sections were being referred to in the amendment proposals. Upon seeking advice for amending the numbering within the original act, I was advised that the simplest route would be to repeal and replace the act, hence this new bill.

This bill has made the necessary changes as advised by the SaBTO report, and has also removed outdated provisions which have since become defunct. Furthermore, the removal of Blood Screening three weeks prior to attempted donation has also been scrapped due to the SaBTO report concluding that it would offer no statistical significance on the modelled risk of potential infection.

[HarveyCanis]

I'm completely opposed to 2 d), so I'm against this.

[JPKC]

(Original post by HarveyCanis)
I'm completely opposed to 2 d), so I'm against this.

Why are you opposed to 2(d)?

[thunder_chunky]

Aye

[HarveyCanis]

(Original post by JPKC)
Why are you opposed to 2(d)?

I feel, despite the evidence, to tell all gay men not to have sex for 12 months in order to donate blood is deeply discriminatory.

[TopHat]

(Original post by HarveyCanis)
I feel, despite the evidence, to tell all gay men not to have sex for 12 months in order to donate blood is deeply discriminatory.

If we grant full equality in that respect by reducing the time period for gay/bisexual men, then we will increase the number of blood samples with HIV.

If we grant full equality in that respect by increasing the time period for heterosexual men, then we will decrease the amount of blood available.

Which would you prefer?

[TopHat]

Not that it matters. First absolute majority of the term, and first supermajority of the term.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by TopHat)
If we grant full equality in that respect by reducing the time period for gay/bisexual men, then we will increase the number of blood samples with HIV.

If we grant full equality in that respect by increasing the time period for heterosexual men, then we will decrease the amount of blood available.

Which would you prefer?

Not all gay people have HIV.......

Just make people have a blood test every 3 or so years if they want to donate blood.

[TopHat]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
Not all gay people have HIV.......

No, not all gay/bisexual men have HIV. If they all did, we wouldn't allow them to donate at all. What they do have is a statistically higher chance of having HIV.

Just make people have a blood test every 3 or so years if they want to donate blood.

That would not be sufficient. Please read the SaBTO link.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by TopHat)
No, not all gay/bisexual men have HIV. If they all did, we wouldn't allow them to donate at all. What they do have is a statistically higher chance of having HIV.



That would not be sufficient. Please read the SaBTO link.

More straight people have HIV.

Can't be bothered really.

[TopHat]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
More straight people have HIV.

Yes, but that's because there are more heterosexual men. As a proportion, more gay/bisexual men carry HIV than heterosexual men.

Can't be bothered really.

So rather than go by medical opinion, you prefer to use gut instinct?

[LPK]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
More straight people have HIV.

Can't be bothered really.

That's because more people identify as straight.

However, the number is still significanctly high within the MSM category, who are recognised as a minority group.

Let us say that hypothetically a gay male and a straight male both sleep with 30 people over a 6 month period. Statistically the gay male is likely to encounter a HIV+ partner before the straight male does and may even encounter numerous partners with HIV, as the transmission rate is significantly higher than heterosexual groups. Sure, the first person the straight guy sleeps with may be HIV+, but you can't create guidelines based on all the vast possibilities which determine risk of HIV exposure. Instead it has to be guided by numbers, and the numbers clearly highlight that MSM donors are at considerably more risk than heterosexual donors.

[JPKC]

(Original post by Maddog Jones)
QFA

Why've you voted against?

[RoryS]

Voted aye

[Maddog Jones]

(Original post by JPKC)
Why've you voted against?

Believe the attempt to liberalise in favour of gays keeps pretty much all discrimination in practice. Most gay men will have had sex in the past year. That said, I was only voting against because of this principle - I commend the attempt to liberalise and stop the discrimination against gays, and would have voted for had it been a close-run thing.

[Metrobeans]

The aye's have it! The aye's have it!