Fairer blood rules put behaviour, not sexuality, at the centre – Editorial
One rule for all. It sounds straightforward, even obvious. Yet across the world, and here in New Zealand, people are still treated differently. This could be for who they are or who they love.
This is why next week’s change to the New Zealand Blood Service sexual activity screening rules is long overdue.
On May 4, all blood and plasma donors will be asked the same question about recent sexual activity, regardless of sexual orientation.
Instead of singling out men who have sex with men, the focus will be on behaviour that carries a higher risk – a fairer and more scientifically sound approach.
As reported by the New Zealand Herald, potential donors will be asked whether they have had new or multiple sex partners in the past three months. If they have, they will then be asked whether they have had anal sex with those partners during that period.
If the donor has had anal sex with new or multiple partners – regardless of the sex of their partner – they will have to wait three months before donating.
This replaces the current rule that prevents men from donating blood if they have had anal or oral sex with another man in the previous three months. The intent has always been to protect recipients from undetected HIV, but the result has been a policy that may have seemed discriminatory and outdated.
The NZ Blood Service chief medical officer, Dr Sarah Morley, callsthis a landmark decision that will allow for a more accurate and fairer assessment of all people wanting to give blood.
Asking the same questions of every donor allows risk to be assessed accurately, without casting suspicion on an entire group of people.
That matters, not just on principle, but in practice.
In New Zealand, less than 4% of the eligible population are active donors. About 120,000 donors contribute to saving 30,000 lives annually.
The blood service requires more than 5000 donations weekly to meet growing demand, which includes about 2100 plasma donations. One blood donation can save up to three lives, with demand increasing by 10% annually for plasma.
The screening process checks several key risk areas to ensure donation safety.
With blood and plasma in such high demand, anything that encourages more people to donate – without compromising safety – should be welcomed. People are far more likely to roll up their sleeves when they feel respected and treated equally.
That being said, donating blood is not a right; it’s a responsibility.
If people choose to donate, they also accept the need to answer personal questions honestly. Those safeguards exist for a reason – because one day, any of us may be the person whose life depends on the generosity and honesty of a stranger.
Fairer rules, shared responsibility, safer outcomes. That’s how one rule for all should work.