Shaneel Lal: Homophobic stigma is in the blood of the donation policies

The NZBS bans long-term monogamous gay couples from donating blood. Photo / Andrew Labett

I was walking through the University of Auckland campus last week when I saw a chalk drawing on the ground that said, "Donate blood and save a life." I thought, "Hmmm, maybe I would if I weren't so gay." The New Zealand Blood Services (NZBS) insists my blood is too gay to save a life.

A gay man can donate blood in New Zealand if they have not engaged in anal or oral sex with another man in the last three months. Anyone who has taken PrEP or PEP, pills taken before and after sex to prevent HIV infection during the previous three months, is also ruled out from donating blood. The NZBS places a blanket ban on gay men and many non-binary people from donating blood without any exceptions.

The NZBS relies entirely on a trust-based system. There is no way for NZBS to reliably identify a gay man or to determine if a gay man has had anal or oral sex in the last three months.

All blood donated to the NZBS is tested for infectious diseases, including HIV and Hepatitis B and C. Newly acquired HIV is usually picked up by the test in seven days. However, in rare cases, a person may need to live with HIV for a few weeks for the NZBS test to pick it up.

According to NZBS, three months is the absolute maximum amount of time it takes before their test will pick up newly acquired HIV. To be certain gay donors are not HIV-positive, the NZBS requires men who have sex with men to abstain from sex for three months before they can donate blood.

I may be convinced that a degree of prohibition is necessary on gay men from donating blood to ensure the safety of the blood. However, the blanket ban on gay men from donating blood is unjustified, and NZBS' refusal to update their policy verges on homophobia.

Monogamous gay couples who've had the same partner for the last three months can safely donate blood. Suppose two gay men have had sex only with each other for the last three months. In that case, the only way HIV could be introduced in their relationship is if one partner contracted HIV before they started their monogamous relationship.

If they go to donate blood three months into their relationship, the NZBS test will pick up if either person is HIV-positive. If neither person tests positive for HIV three months into their monogamous relationship, it would mean neither person was HIV-positive before the relationship or is HIV-positive three months into their relationship.

The logical thing to do in that case is to allow them to donate blood. However, the NZBS bans long-term monogamous gay couples from donating blood. After sending seven emails in three months, the NZBS has failed to explain why that's the case.

England, Scotland, Wales, and Canada have taken the same approach and have seen no spread of HIV through blood donations. In those countries anyone, regardless of sexuality, who has had the same sexual partner for the last three months can donate blood. If they've acquired HIV and Hepatitis B and C in those three months, it will show up in the screening test.

In a country with so many caring gay men willing to donate blood, I find the plea to save lives from an organisation that insists on maintaining homophobic blood donation policies inappropriate and downright offensive. New Zealand imbues blood donors with moral superiority. The blanket ban on gay men continues to perpetuate the stigma against gay men. It says that gay men are dirty and of little service to their country.

Framing blood donation as saving lives while denying an entire group of people the right to participate because of their sexuality is an archaic idea that we should have ditched years ago. The NZBS should allow monogamous gay couples who have had the same sexual partner for the last three months to donate blood.

Shaneel Shavneel Lal (they/them) was instrumental in the bill to ban conversion therapy in New Zealand. They are a law and psychology student, model and influencer.