今日吃瓜

The Red Cross Lifeblood Service has begun a public relations campaign that attempts to redefine exclusion as inclusion.

It wants to convince the nation that its plan for allowing gay men to donate blood plasma but not whole blood is better than Canada and the UK鈥檚 approach which is to treat us equally for both whole blood and plasma donation.

Like many Australians, I respect the Red Cross for its decades of work helping Australians in need, including through its Lifeblood service.

That鈥檚 why my advice to the Red Cross is to pull back on its PR campaign before its reputation for impartiality is damaged.

Lifting The Gay Blood Ban

At the moment gay men, and bisexual men and trans women who have sex with men (GBT people), must be sexually abstinent for three months before donating blood.

More and more countries are abolishing this old ban and adopting a new system whereby all donors of whole blood, gay and straight, cis and trans, are asked the same questions.

This includes countries like the UK, the US, the Netherlands and Canada. In those countries all donors are asked if they have had anal sex with a new or multiple partners in the last three months. The focus is on activity that causes risk, not the gender of a donor鈥檚 sexual partner.

Australia should go down the same path. But the Red Cross Lifeblood Service has diverted us on to what it calls 鈥渢he Plasma Pathway鈥�.

The ‘Plasma Pathway’

Lifeblood鈥檚 proposal is to allow GBT people to donate blood plasma, not whole blood.

This is because plasma, unlike whole blood, can be heat treated for pathogens such as HIV.

Lifeblood hasn鈥檛 accepted individual risk assessment for whole blood donation because it believes this will reduce the blood supply by screening out women who have anal sex with new or multiple partners.

A Canadian study found the percentage of existing straight donors who would聽be deferred from donating聽because聽of using individual risk assessment questions would be less than 1 percent, a figure made up for by new gay donors.

But Lifeblood seems very concerned about losing those few at-risk straight donors, much more concerned than it has ever been about losing the 95 per cent of GBT people who are聽safe to donate.

It鈥檚 so concerned, that it is determined to sell its 鈥淧lasma Pathway鈥� as the best way forward, when the truth is exactly the opposite.

How Lifeblood Is Misleading Us

Let鈥檚 consider the following Lifeblood table comparing the current ban, individual risk assessment and the Plasma Pathway.

At first glance it looks like Lifeblood鈥檚 proposed Plasma Pathway is the best option for those who can鈥檛 currently donate.

People on PrEP can donate under the Plasma Pathway, but not under individual risk assessment for whole blood.

It鈥檚 the same for people in new or multiple relationships.

But there鈥檚 two key facts missing.

The Discrimination Will Remain

The first is that under the Plasma Pathway GBT people can鈥檛 give whole blood.

The three-month sexual abstinence requirement that applies to us now will still apply.

This means GBT people who have rare blood types, and who could give blood during emergency situations or to relatives undergoing cancer treatment, won鈥檛 be able to help save lives.

It means we will be second class donors, able to donate plasma because it鈥檚 treated for pathogens, but still considered too disease-prone to be treated like other donors.

I didn鈥檛 invent the term 鈥渟econd-class donors鈥�. It comes directly from a study Canadian researchers conducted when that country trialled plasma-only donation scheme.

If this is what Canadian聽gay聽men thought of the plasma-only option, I have no doubt Australians will too.

It Doesn鈥檛 Have To Be Either / Or

The other key fact missing from Lifeblood鈥檚 table is that plasma donation, and whole blood donation under an individual risk assessment scheme, are not mutually exclusive.

We can and should have both. The US, the UK, the Netherlands and Canada do, so why not Australia?

The germ of truth in Lifeblood鈥檚 PR is that its proposed plasma-only option has fewer restrictions than plasma donation in other countries: No sexual risk questions are asked and people on PrEP can donate.

This is splendid, but it鈥檚 not a reason to deny whole-blood donation.

Let Us Give wants Australia to allow GBT people to give whole blood without any discriminatory questions.

We also want to allow GBT people to give plasma under Lifeblood鈥檚 proposed plasma-donation regime, including those who can鈥檛 give whole blood.

It doesn鈥檛 have to be either/or. It should be 鈥渁nd鈥�.

Inventing New Ways To Discriminate

Three other irritating pieces of misinformation should also be corrected.

In some of its communications, Lifeblood says donors must be monogamous to donate blood under individual risk assessment. That鈥檚 not true. They聽just聽can鈥檛 have anal sex with聽new or multiple partners in the last three months.

Lifeblood over-estimates the number of people on PrEP who would be potential new donors under its plasma-only proposal.

It says 60,000,聽but most of those can already donate plasma based on current PrEP-related criteria.聽Only those on PrEP in the last three months would normally be excluded, and that figure is only 24,000.

Lifeblood also says its plasma-only option is a world first. That鈥檚 misleading.

As noted above, Canada trialled plasma-only donation for GBT people. It quickly abandoned the trial and moved on to individual risk assessment for whole blood AND plasma donation instead. Israel did the same.

Obviously, all the other countries that allow whole blood donation by GBT people also allow plasma donation.

The main thing Australia is leading the world on is inventing new ways to be discriminatory in blood donation and to pretend that discrimination is a step forward.

That is shown clearly by this table put together by Let Us Give. It takes into account the facts Lifeblood omits from its table.

Moralistic And Judgy

Lifeblood鈥檚 communications strategy is clear.

It wants to demonise whole blood donation under an individual risk assessment scheme and legitimise its Plasma Pathway by making the former look discriminatory, exclusive, moralistic and judgy compared to the latter.

In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite. Lifeblood鈥檚 continued demand that GBT people be sexually abstinent for three months before giving whole blood is what is most discriminatory and judgy.

So is its demand that GBT people settle for plasma-only donation instead of being allowed to give whole blood.

We faced the same problem in the late 2000s when some politicians tried to sell us civil unions instead of marriage equality.

They said civil unions were cooler and more contemporary than marriage, and didn鈥檛 come with all the religious and patriarchal baggage of matrimony.

But when we said, let鈥檚 have both, and were told only civil unions were on offer, not marriage, it was clear all the business about baggage was just political spin.

It鈥檚 the same with the Plasma Pathway. It鈥檚 being misleadingly聽sold to us as聽less discriminatory, when it is just old-style discrimination in a new package.

Hopefully, Lifeblood will realise its spin won鈥檛 fool anyone and stop its PR campaign.

More than that, hopefully, it will abandon the plasma-only proposal altogether and move Australia forward to full equity in blood donation.

In the meantime, support the campaign to remove all discrimination in blood donation by signing the petition:聽