Several witnesses in the Tasmanian case against the Red Cross’ blood ban on sexually active gay male donors have called for the policy to be reviewed.

Former federal government health adviser, Bill Bowtell, said that donors should be selected depending on their safe-sex practices rather than blanket discrimination.

Dr Scott Halpern, a bio-ethicist from the University of Pennsylvania, told the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal that blood which is older than 15 days old posed a “thousand times greater risk” than the threat of HIV infection stemming from unsafe male to male sex.

13 per cent of the Red Cross’ blood supply is older than 15 days.

The gay blood donation case was instigated by Michael Cain, a Launceston man who is seeking to have the Red Cross change their blood donation policy so that donors are screened for the safety of their sexual activity, rather than the gender of their sexual partner.

The first witness for the Red Cross, Risk Management Assessor Dr William Leiss, is the author of the study which endorsed Canada’s current policy of a lifetime ban on gay blood donors.

Leiss said he could not respond when Cain’s lawyer, Peter Tree SC, asked if he thought old blood was a greater risk than gay men who practiced safe sex in a monogamous relationship.

The Mercury reports a US blood-banking expert, Paul Holland, as saying that Australia had the ‘best record in the world’ for reducing HIV and recommending that the system should not be changed.

“If it ain’t broke, let’s not try to fix it,” Holland said.

The case continues.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Website
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment