- Conference
- 2006 Health Care Service Group Conference
- Date
- 22 December 2005
- Decision
- Carried as Amended
Conference notes
1.The National Blood Service (NBS) collects, tests, processes, stores and issues 2.1 million blood donations yearly;
2.Potential donors are asked if they are member of a community at higher risk of contracting HIV/Aids – communities that include men who sleep with men, people who have had sex in Africa and intravenous drug users. In addition several groups are also excluded on a number of other grounds including recent infection, recent childbirth, spending more than six months abroad, receipt of blood products since 1980, previous major surgery or those currently on medication and various other grounds;
3.The purpose of screening blood donors was to provide a safe and adequate supply of blood in a cost of effective manner. The current selection criteria are based on UK epidemiology (study of the causes, distribution, and control of diseases in populations);
4.That screening of blood donors for HIV is necessary for the safety of the blood supply because the available tests for screening donated blood for HIV are not infallible, it is not possible to heat-treat whole blood, and there is a 90% chance of contracting HIV from a transfusion of HIV infected blood and there is a ‘window’ of at least three months before HIV infection can be detected by tests (and in this context it is believed that all cases of HIV transmission via blood products in the UK since 1990 occurred as a result of HIV infection not being discovered due to the 3 month ‘window’ period);
5.That the current blanket exclusion approach has been agreed by the Terrence Higgins Trust in consultation with relevant LGBT and HIV/AIDS organisations but that in several countries this approach is now being questioned and reviewed.
Conference is concerned that the current ban on men who have ever had oral or anal sex with another man from giving blood perpetuates a damaging and false myth that all gay men are at risk of HIV. There are thousands of gay and bisexual men who have never had sex without using condoms or who have had a negative HIV test since they last did so.
Policies on who may and who may not donate blood must be justified and must flow directly from hard evidence from risk assessments on groups at risk, subject to regular review. There should always be clear medical and epidemiological justification for any difference in treatment between groups of potential donors.
UNISON and the TUC have already raised questions with the National Blood Service about reviewing the evidence on which it bases its current policy, the language used in information to potential donors and practice in donor sessions.
Whilst recognising that the need for an adequate and safe supply of blood must be the NBS’s overriding concern, Conference believes the NBS should actively consider a move away from a ‘blanket ban’ approach towards guidelines for blood donation which might permit gay and bisexual men to donate blood provided they can safely be deemed not to be at risk from HIV infection where this is consistent with the available medical and epidemiological evidence.
Gay and bisexual UNISON members have reported that when they attempted to give blood, NBS staff could not provide an explanation for why they were prevented from giving blood. Other members have reported that the NBS visits their workplace for a blood donor session and their managers have demanded an explanation from all employees who do not volunteer to give blood.
Conference calls on the Service Group Executive, working with UNISON’s National Blood Service Forum to:
A.Work with Terrence Higgins Trust and other HIV/AIDS organisations to review current research and best practice in the field of blood screening and, if necessary, amend blood donation policy and procedures in light of it;
B.Discuss with Terrence Higgins Trust the wording of publicity information from the National Blood Service on men who have sex with men and screening of blood donors;
C.Work with NBS to ensure that
i.All staff receive appropriate training and support to ensure they are able to answer questions on the rational behind the screening policy;
ii.When they hold donor sessions at workplaces they advise senior mangers not to create an environment where donations are deemed to be obligatory unless employees provide an “adequate” explanation;
iiiAs well as seeking to promote privacy at the time of blood donor campaigns seek to ensure that all publicity relating to blood donation recognises that many different groups of people are unable to give blood.