Page 1306 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 11 April 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.16): I am pleased to speak on this important issue. Blood donations are crucial to support the health of our community. Our health system could not function effectively without them. The Red Cross tells us that every blood donation can help save up to three lives, with the blood you donate having the potential to be made into 22 different medical treatments. Whether it is people who have been involved in serious accidents, those who have complications from cancer or pregnancy or others who have chronic medical conditions that mean they need blood products readily to stay healthy, blood donations can help people from all walks of life.
Given that the need for blood products is not going to go away and is likely to increase as our population grows, it makes sense to accept donations from as many people as possible. In this context I thank Mr Steel for raising the ethical issues of importing blood from other countries, where almost certainly the donors are more vulnerable than the donors in Australia. As a separate issue, it would be great if we could have funded the Australian Red Cross so that we did have a better local supply of blood. But I appreciate that that is outside the ACT government’s remit.
I get back to the matter at hand. Of course the safety of the donor and the recipient must always be the number one priority. But if advice from the experts is that there are safe ways to reduce restrictions on who can donate, then this clearly should be supported. At the moment the criteria on who can be a blood donor include restrictions relating to age, weight and medical history. There are a number of very sensible restrictions in place for those who are on medication, people with low iron levels and a range of other circumstances. The ability to donate or the length of the wait period will be determined based on each person’s individual circumstances.
However, many experts have raised questions about the current restrictions placed on gay men before they can become blood donors. It seems that, given the advances in medical testing and treatment, this restriction is not so much an issue of safety but more of discrimination. At the moment gay men must abstain from male-to-male sex for 12 months before they are eligible to donate blood. This restriction was imposed because men who have sex with men were considered to be at a higher risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections and, in particular, HIV.
It is important to acknowledge that, as access to contraception and HIV testing has increased, the rates of HIV in the gay community continue to decrease, as is the case across the general community. We need to recognise that there are many men who are in monogamous homosexual relationships and who would clearly be considered to be at a very low risk of infection. By placing a blanket ban on the whole gay community we attach a stigma to that group. We also limit the group of potential blood donors.
The reality is that there is some level of unknown risk of STIs—sexually transmitted infections—with all sexual partners, both homosexual and heterosexual. It is absolutely right for the blood donor service to impose restrictions on blood donations based on an informed risk assessment. But we should be open to changing these restrictions when our evidence base and technology improves.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video