gay blood donation

The Australian movement for reform

On this page…

Background to Michael Cain’s gay blood donation case

Background to the current Australian gay blood donation policy

1. Background to Michael Cain’s gay blood donation case

~ Michael Cain is turned away from blood donation

On October 25th 2004 Michael Cain visited the Red Cross blood collection centre in Launceston with a friend, wanting to make a donation.

According to Michael’s statement to the Anti-Discrimination Commission,

"After filling almost all of the form in, I came to a few questions at the end and one in particular ‘Have you engaged in male-to-male sex in the last 12 months’. At this point I felt that I was being personally violated in a way. I couldn’t believe that they were asking about sex let alone singling out male-to-male sex when people could easily lie anyway. I answered truthfully. We both handed our forms back and finished our drinks. Shortly afterwards, my housemate was taken away to have his blood taken, and I was asked to accompany a nurse into an empty office. I noticed that she was carrying my questionnaire in her hand and I got a little nervous and self-conscious. She sat me down and said she needed to ask me some questions about my form.

"The nurse then informed me that she was unable to take my blood due to the fact that I was gay. I was informed that gay men have a higher risk of carrying contaminated blood due to unsafe sexual practices. Growing increasingly frustrated and concerned that any more questioning of this policy would only upset me further I thanked her for her time and left the office. I sat in the waiting room for about 30 minutes until my housemate had finished donating. During this time I felt very hurt, dirty and alone. Later that night and the next day, I was upset. No one has ever made me feel that way before the 25th or again since."

For a full copy of Michael’s statement about the events surrounding his attempt to donate blood click here.

~ A case is lodged a case with the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner

After repeatedly raising his concerns about blood donation policy with the Red Cross, to no avail, Michael Cain approached the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group and the Hobart Community Legal Service seeking assistance

Both organizations agreed to support Michael and on August 2nd 2005 a case was lodged with the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission alleging discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and lawful sexual activity.

For more click here

In July 2006 the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner found there to be a prima facae breach of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act and referred Michael’s case to the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal for a full hearing.

For more click here

After many preliminary hearings that hearing is due to begin on August 7th 2008.

At the time Michael case was initially lodged with the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, he also lodged a case with the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

The application to HREOC alleged that discrimination in blood donation breaches Australia’s human rights obligations.

In April 2007 HREOC decided not to accept Michael’s application. It was clear from HREOC’s decision that it had not fully considered the materials Michael had submitted to it.

For more click here

~ Support for Michael Cain's case

Michael’s case has received support from many individuals and from gay human rights and medical organisations.

In 2006 the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby adopted the following policy on blood donation.

“In the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby’s (VGLRL) view, the effective ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood is bad public policy, discriminatory and at odds with safe-sex messages. Regarding public policy, the ban robs the Australian public of a significant pool of potential blood donors at a time when blood supplies are critically low. The ban also unnecessarily discriminates against gay and bisexual men and stigmatises them as a threat to public health. Finally, the ban also sends out an incorrect and irresponsible public health message by suggesting that all gay sex is a health risk while virtually all heterosexual sex is safe.

“The Red Cross must remove its ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood and instead screen all potential donors on the basis of the individual medical and sexual activity, including whether or not they practise safe sex.

While Australia’s community AIDS organisations provide in-principle support for the current gay blood ban, they also support a review of that policy in light of improving testing technology.

According to an Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations media release issued in July 2006,

AFAO president Ian Rankin explained that although he considered the current policy reasonable in the context of the Australian HIV epidemic, such policies need be open to review.

"The 12 month deferral policy for men who have sex with men was put in place many years ago when screening technologies were less advanced. If a review identifies a better way of doing things, we would support reform."

For a full copy of the media statement click here,

For a biography of Michael Cain click here.

2. Background to the current Australian gay blood donation policy

In response to the appearance of the disease later known as AIDS - a new devastating illness for which there was no known cause, cure or prevention - US authorities began discussing barring “high risk groups” from blood donation in mid-1982. These groups included Haitians, drug addicts and gay men – were excluded from blood donation in March the following year.

At about the same time concerns about the safety of the blood supply began to be expressed in the Australian press. In May 1983, the head of the NSW Red Cross called on “promiscuous homosexuals” to desist from blood donation. In June, following heated debate, the National Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service clarified that gay men with multiple partners should abstain from donating blood.

A year later, in mid-1984, a Melbourne man was infected with HIV from a gay blood donor, as were three children in Queensland. In the resulting hysteria, gay men are described as “beneath animals”, accused of deliberately spreading AIDS through the blood supply to “get back at the world”, and attacked by vigilante gangs. In November, Prime Minister Hawke urged gay men not to donate blood, and a new donor declaration form was introduced barring all “homosexual and bisexual males” from blood donation.

In the quarter century since AIDS first appeared and these policies were adopted in response to pervasive ignorance and fear of the disease, Australia’s approach to gay blood donation has been considerably refined and reformed.

By the late 1990s the focus had shifted from all homosexual and bisexual males to those men who were sexually active with other men in the previous five years. By 2003 this had been reduced to one year. These reforms were made in response to two developments. This first was in screening technology: with the introduction of NAT testing in 2000 the presence of HIV could be detected directly, rather than through viral anti-bodies which take some time to appear. The second was knowledge about the transmission of HIV: by the late 90s it was clear that AIDS is spread by unsafe sex, not gay sex.

At no time did this process of reform and refinement jeopardise the safety of the blood supply. When HIV has been transmitted through blood donation, as occurred in Melbourne in 1999, the infected donor has been heterosexual.

The aim of Michael Cain and his supporters is to build on the gradual and successful reform of Australia’s gay blood donation policy described above, in a way which enhances both the safety and quantity of donor blood.

Because the Red Cross is unwilling to consider change at this time, the debate on blood donor reform has been taken to the Tasmania’s anti-discrimination authorities.

This is not the first time such action has been taken. In 1998 Scott Norman took a case against the Red Cross ban on all gay blood donation to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission. His case was dismissed because the Red Cross was then under a legislative requirement to exclude men who have sex with other men from blood donation.

Such a requirement no longer exists, opening up the possibility for the gay blood ban to have its day in court.