With Russia as the latest European nation to change policy over homosexuals giving the gift of life' some feel that Britain's current blood donation system is also due for a rethink.
Following pressure from GayRussia over the last two years, the Russian Minister of Health and Social Development, Tatyana Golikova, signed the decree in April of this year allowing gay men to donate blood. In the UK the National Blood Service's policy states that gay men are one of the select groups that should never donate due to the health risks.
In England the equal rights campaign Bloodban has laid criticism on the NBS's donation policy, labelling it out-dated and discriminatory to homosexuals.
Founder Russell Hirst began his communication with the NBS in 2003 and started Bloodban early this year to increase the pressure to have the policy reviewed'.
He explained:
"We want the ban to be dropped completely - therefore dramatically increasing the number of potential donors, increasing blood stocks, stopping this discrimination and reducing the marketing spend too."
After setting up the online site Bloodban.co.uk, he has received 1,455 signatures and aims to take it to the petition to the NHS blood donor Chief Executive and Westminster after reaching 5000 supporters.
"I do not believe that a blanket ban' is the correct course of action, the issue comes down to cost. The NBS is currently trying to centralise donation centres and cut jobs, therefore the last thing they need is the cost of reviewing, changing and implementing a new policy."
This lifetime ban has been debated in a UK Parliament already this year however, with a petition by socialist Rob McDowall taken to the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee in April. Despite strong support from The National Union of Students (NUS) who began their own campaign at Robert Gordon University (RGU) in Aberdeen, and the assistance of SMP's the policy is still under review by The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service.
SMP for the West of Scotland, Bill Wilson expressed:
"We want as many people donating as possible; I believe modern blood testing should be capable of detecting HIV. They should update the blood screening system."
The policy was last reviewed in the UK in January 2007 by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO), and is set for further consideration over the next 18 months in light of advances in screening and treatment of infectious agents.
It is unlikely that they will follow suit with the Russian policy however, as the NHS's standpoint is that each country has a separate HIV issue.
There latest position statement reads:
Each blood service must make decisions as to who can give blood based on the most up-to-date evidence of disease patterns in their populations'.
In the UK gay men are considered statistically a higher risk than heterosexuals with the last review finding that men who have sex with men continue to be disproportionately affected by HIV, accounting for 63% of HIV diagnoses where the infection was likely to have been acquired in the UK.
An NBS spokesman said:
"The current policy is not about sexuality, but about sexual behaviour. We do not ask donors about their sexuality. Anal sex between two men has a higher risk of HIV transmission than anal sex between heterosexual partners because there is a higher chance that one (or both) of the men are infected with HIV", he added.
Hirst feels these statistics are out-dated, though the policy has support from HIV and gay health charities such as the Terrence Higgins Trust.
The THT standpoint is that:
Statistically in the UK men who have sex with men remain significantly more at risk of contracting HIV than there heterosexual counterparts, and indeed are more at risk of contracting the virus today than at any time since the onset of the epidemic 25 years ago'.
A spokesman for GMFA, The Gay Men's Health Charity stated:
"We are in agreement with the NHS policy, as we know from results of saliva testing in bars that there is a very high rate of undiagnosed HIV amongst the gay population.
Blood is grouped after screening and an infected sample could contaminate a batch. A policy which excludes high risk groups seems to be very sensible."