1820 Blood Overture

Tomorrow it will be 1,820 days since men who have had sex with men (MSM) have been able to give blood in England, Wales and Scotland. Tomorrow is also the first day that the same 12 month deferral period comes into force in Northern Ireland.

After years of me campaigning for an evidence based policy on the risk my blood and that or other people who take every precaution possible with regards to their blood this is the eve of a momentous day.

The 17th August 1998 was the last time I donated blood and on that day I had done so illegally not having checked all the small print about my sexual history. I hope that those who benefited in the shortfall after the effects of the Omagh bombing are not too annoyed with me my last pint. Early next week, I hope to be able to return to the ranks of those who donate blood.

However, while I can return to donating blood next week, it may not last for long. Should I have sex with another man I once again will have to wait twelve longs months of celibacy, even if that one person becomes my life partner to ever be able to give blood again. The fact that I can give blood tells you one thing about my I've not had sex in over 12 months, the fact that in the future I may not will tell you the reverse. No matter how safe, how committed a relationship or how good my blood is unaffected by disease and a good oxygen carrier it may be withdrawn from helping others.

However, while one small part of me is rejoicing to be able to donate my blood once again, another part of me mourns that should I fall in love again once more stigma rather the basis of how we make love will decide if I can donate or not.

Bloody looking forward to 1 September #bloodban

The last time I donated blood was on Monday 17th August 1998, I did so illegally because as a man who'd had sex with a man I wasn't totally truthful on the form. But it was two days after the Omagh bombing and blood stocks were low.

However, 18 years and 2 weeks on I will be able to give blood again and this time fully legally providing I don't have any sex with another man in the meantime. This is because today Northern Ireland's new health Minister Michelle O'Neill announced that science and not stigma would be the guide by which those making blood donations would be tested.

It is the end, within the UK, of a campaign I have been involved with for much of the 18 years since I last donated. It is one of the steps for LGBT+ equality that are needed for me as a Northern Irish gay man to have a civil worth that equates to the self worth that I took many years to come to terms with myself. There are still many more fights to be won but this a welcome one and one we haven't had to reach through the courts (although there were court cases pending on this issue).

So roll on 1 September, I look forward to digging out my 28 year old donation booklet to add new confirmations of donation.

The Northern Ireland abortion consultation

There is a letter in today's Belfast Telegraph arguing for human rights for the unborn, in light of the Northern Ireland Department of Justice looking at extending the right to abortion to fatal foetal abnormalities and victims of rape.

Here's the thing there already is the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine which includes two very clear articles that address issues:

Article 14 – Non-selection of sex 

The use of techniques of medically assisted procreation shall not be allowed for the purpose of choosing a future child's sex, except where serious hereditary sex-related disease is to be avoided.

Article 18 – Research on embryos in vitro 

1. Where the law allows research on embryos in vitro, it shall ensure adequate protection of the embryo. 
2. The creation of human embryos for research purposes is prohibited.

Another document to consult is the UN Declaration on Human Rights. In Article 1 there is lays out what a human being actually is:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Keys words are born, reason and conscience. Surely that implies that our human existance only begins at the point of our birth.

But having said that the embryo articles in the biomedicine convention do give some protections even before then. Indeed Article 14 would seem to allow by extension to allow for the three parent medical assistance for overcoming mitochondrial diseases. It is not choosing gender specific related disease but still allowing avoidance of serious disease.

Someone in the comments used a very good analogy in relation to fatal foetal abnormalities, comparing it to life support machines. We allow families to turn off the life support of those whose brain is no longer conscious and able to support their life with the system. The same applies to fatal foetal abnormalities, their life support machine is the mother's womb and the tubes they are linked up to are the umbilical chord. We don't make families wait up to 9 months to turn off the life support machine, so why should this be different for fatal foetal abnormalities?

As for victims of rape turn again to the UN Declaration on Human Right

Article 5.

 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

If you have been raped and are made to carry your pregnancy full term is that not cruel? Is that not degrading treatment? Think of all the times once the bump starts to show that a mother is asked "will the father be looking after you both" or "who's the father?". Aren't these also parts of a cruel punishment for a woman whose body has been invaded not just in the brief minutes of the assault but for the 9 months that cruel, often male, objectors insist she must live with the evidence of a low point in here existence.

Can Peter Robinson please define bonkers?

So last night Northern Ireland's First Minister Peter Robinson said of the decision of the Equality Commission to consider taking legal action against Ashers:

"This kind of decision from the Equality Commission is bonkers. They really do need to wind their necks in. 

"In times when we are scrapping around trying to get funding for essential services for Northern Ireland, they are tossing it away."

No forgive me it I am wrong but there were recent cuts to services announced in health care provision, which is run by one of his party's ministers, whose predecessor has run up large legal bills to try and prevent gay couples from adopting, this was lost in the supreme court in October 2013. That department is also pursuing legal appeals against a decision that the lifetime ban on Men who've had Sex with Men (MSM) is irrational and should also come into line with the rest of the UK.

Yes, you see there is a department that is scrapping around trying to get funding for essential service that has been tossing it away trying to prevent equality.

So I ask Peter Robinson which is  bonkers?

Is it seeking a ruling on something that there is clearly some dispute on, or ignoring or refusing to acknowledge judicial rulings until all levels of appeal are expended at the public's expense?

New Minister of Health

So who have the DUP gone and replaced Edwin Poots with as Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Why none other than their member for South Down Jim Wells.

The question is whose health etc will be looking after?

In 2011 the new Health Minister said that the behaviour of those who took part the march at Belfast Pride was "totally repugnant". Now that he is a minister he should not be judging and without evidence generalising such a group of LGBT Northern Irish people, plus their families and supporters. He should be providing health and social services to them without discrimination as well as working to improve their public safety. So yeah this does include proper sex education and that included MSM sex as well as disease prevention. he may not condone the activity but he has budgetary responsibility for the consequences.

But that is that the only group whose health in now in the hands of this man. The following year he said that victims of rape and sexual assault should not be exempt from the strict Northern Irish laws banning abortion. His plan instead, contrary to the opinion of many medical professionals, is that such traumatised women should carry the child full term and offer it up for adoption. This of course means that the trauma of the assault would have to be revisited 9 months after the incident as well as the various times during that period that the mother has to go through pregnancy.

What is worse of course is that Mr Wells made these comments while Deputy Chair of the Health Committee and has long been muted as the replacement for Mr Poots. It looks like we have lost one science sceptic from the health department for one just as, if not more so, sceptical person. Who seems to ignore medical advise, scientific evidence and has a way with language that is ill thought out and offensive to groups which he now has some say over key elements of their well being.

We live in interesting times, but then so was the days of the dinosaurs.

Looking at Poots' preferred Blood Banning nations - The Truth

"The same legislation that applies today in Northern Ireland applies in the USA, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark.  I will pose a question.

"The vast majority of countries apply that legislation.  So are all those people prejudiced or is the question that is being posed by others that I am prejudiced just a stupid one?"

Now that was a question posed by Edwin Poots, Northern Ireland's Health Minister, yesterday. However, if is possibly the wrong question. All of these nations brought in such legislation during the 1980s when it was believed that HIV was a disease that only affected gay men and also at a time when testing for the virus was not as good as it is now. 

So while politicians in these countries maintain this ban what have the medical advisers in some of the countries listed by Poots have actually said:

USA: The American Medical Association earlier this year has advised the Food and Drug Administration who oversee blood donations there that:

"The lifetime ban on blood donation for men who have sex with men is discriminatory and not based on sound science. This new policy urges a federal policy change to ensure blood donation bans or deferrals are applied to donors according to their individual level of risk and are not based on sexual orientation alone."  

Canada:  On May 22, 2013, Health Canada approved proposals from Canadian Blood Services (CBS) and Héma-Québec (HQ) to change the blood donor deferral period for men who have sex with men (MSM) from a lifetime deferral to five years. This regulatory decision came as a result of proposed licence amendments submitted in December 2012 from both blood operators.

Germany: The German Medical Association (BÄK) earlier this year has also said that it will do everything “within its means” to remove the blanket ban on men who have sex with men, those with lots of sexual partners and prostitutes, from donating blood.

France: A Government report earlier this year stated that prohibiting gay donors is now unnecessary because all donated blood is effectively screened for HIV. One of their advisers said:

"There is still this stereotypical image of all gay men having AIDS, which comes from the 1980s. People simply thought AIDS was a gay man’s disease and we are stuck with that view today.

"Most gay couples are simply like any other heterosexual couples in terms of their sexual practices.

"Allowing homosexual men to give blood will take away the risk that people lie on the questionnaires. People who give blood are normally responsible people. They do it for the benefit of someone else and will not do it if they think they pose a risk."

Netherlands: In the government's LGBT  equality plan it says: "The cabinet will consult the Sanquin blood bank and explore the possibilities for amending the rules regarding blood donation so that for men, sexual contact with other men will no longer lead to life-long exclusion from donating blood. In this regard, needless to say the safety of the recipients of blood products has the highest priority."

Sweden: Actually are rather erroneously on this list. MSM have been allowed to give blood after a 12 month deferral period there following a change in the rules as far back as 2010.

Luxembourg: In June 2013 the Minster of Health said "sexual orientation cannot be a reason to ban blood donation.Sexual orientation is not a risk in itself." However, he is awaiting the results from the UK and France (see above) before making his own decision on this. Meanwhile the study in their country found that homosexuals with a single partner were no more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals, while homosexuals with frequently changing partners were indeed found to be at a higher risk to contract the disease.

Singapore: It is still a criminal offense under the old British imposed penal code to consensually have sex with another man in Singapore. It therefore seems a little remiss of Edwin Poots to compare this nation with Northern Ireland as for a man to admit to having sex with another man while donating blood there (instead of counseling could face a 2 year jail term)


Mr Poots also fail to mention Australia (12 month deferral), New Zealand (5 year deferal), Spain, Portugal, Italy.

In opening his remarks yesterday Mr Poots said:

"There is no ban on blood donation by gay men per se.  The lifetime ban is based on sexual behaviour, not sexual orientation."

Actually this is contrary to the SaBTO report and many of those reports carried out in other nations that are cited above. A monogamous homosexual couple in a long-term relationship are no more susceptible to acquiring a blood borne infection than a heterosexual couple. Nor is a man who had sex with other men over one year ago, any more at risk than another individual bases solely on that one criteria. Also not all MSM are gay men. From the criteria still used by the Northern Ireland Blood Tranfusion service it involves any man who has had any sexual contact either anally or orally, with or without a condom at any point in their life. For some men this may have been a one off in their youth that excludes them, if could also exclude their wife of x years for a 12 month period beyond the time they stop being sexually active.

When actual behaviour is taken into consideration, number of sexual partners, casualness and anonymity of those partners, risks of the sex involved with that individual, then Mr Poots can really say that the ban is based on sexual behaviour not orientation. I'll even allow a deferral period on MSM.

But he is also insulting nations such as the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands and indeed the Nordic nations especially Sweden when he says that they maintain the same prejudice as that which he claims he is merely echoing. They have commissioned reports which find broadly similar findings to that of SaBTO. The recommendations may vary from 6 months, through 12 to one year, for the deferral period but that recommendation has been made by those medical professionals. The same has recommendation has been made by SaBTO.

Three of the four health ministers acting swiftly in their deliberations on the findings of SaBTO. Only one is lagging and has attempted all manner of legal shenanigans to first fight the move to lift the lifetime ban. Secondly the prevent the information he based his judgements on being released. Most of the countries that Mr Poots listed are looking to see how and when they can lift the lifetime ban on MSM giving blood, unlike him who has spent the last two years working out how he can avoid doing so.

The cost of the DUP's institutionalised homophobia

Most of the UK is aware of the austerity measures that are being imposed on them due to the financial issues we have faced since 2008. Cuts have been made to excessive and unnecessary spending in a whole manner of issues. Tough decisions have been made about what front line services are to be kept and front line services like education and health are afforded protection.

However, in Northern Ireland the Minister for Health has been using his limited, if protected budget, on the institutionalised homophobia. I am not mincing my words on this as I have called the way that the DUP have gone about preventing the LGBT population of Northern Ireland having the same rights as their peers in the rest of the UK is just that.

Earlier this week we heard that after the High Court in Belfast has found that excluding some would-be parents solely on their relationship status narrowed the pool of potential adopters and could not be in the best interests of children. Edwin Poots however was not happy after all the legal fees he had spent on fighting this, which came out of the Health Department's budget, and will be spending even more on Lawyers as he takes the matter of same sex couples adopting in Northern Ireland to the Supreme Court of the UK.

There is a certain irony here as the Health Minister had called for an all Island approach to adoption, and is taking it to the Supreme Court of the jurisdiction where there already is just what the High Court in Belfast have said. In all likelihood the Supreme Court will uphold the right of UK citizens to have the same rights as all the others, so will that mean more money being thrown after the £40,000 he has spent on this already.

Then yesterday the Belfast Telegraph reported that combined with the legal advise to prevent the lifting of the lifetime ban on men who have had sex with other men his total legal costs so far are £100,000.

The below are the answers received last week, costs are exclusive of VAT.

• Costs of appeal to adoption decision
• Costs to date of blocking lifting lifetime blood ban on men who have had sex with men

Who is ultimate victim of rape?

There has been a lot of talk about rape in the past week. Whether it be about Julian Assange or Todd Akin, but we've had another case right here in Northern Ireland.

When I was working for the Yes! campaign in Northern Ireland I had to walk past The Family Planning Association on the way to get my lunch. Quite often there were pickets outside. Because unlike anywhere else in the UK abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland.

It does not of course prevent Northern Irish women seeking abortions, indeed over 1000 traveled to seek one last year alone, they merely have the additional trauma have having to travel to England, Scotland or Wales. But today their anguish wasn't helped by the next Health Minster the DUP MLA Jim Wells.

Speaking on the Nolan Show he said that the ultimate victim of rape is the unborn child. Adding:

"Should he or she be punished for what has happened by having their life terminated? No.

"In Northern Ireland, there are hundreds of married couples who would love to adopt children - a child, a baby - and who could give support in that situation."

Now there isn't just one victim of any rape. Indeed in the last year in Northern Ireland there were 525 cases reported. This figure is actually higher than the number reported in the Republic of Ireland which has three times the population!

So what about the mental well being of all those 525 victims?

Not all of those 525 will want to face a nine month reminder of the horrid crime carried out against their person. Suffering through morning sickness, the back pain, the increase in girth (not to mention having to buy maternity clothes). That is to say nothing of the additional mental anguish both during and after pregnancy of having gone through being forced to carry the child full term.

Who is the ultimate victim of Northern Ireland not allowing abortion, even in such conditions?

Of course to get across to England, Scotland or Wales, these women are using savings theirs or their families, digging into pension funds or going to loan sharks to afford the additional expense of getting a ferry or flight and accommodation to cover them meeting with the two doctors, both strangers to the woman, to get the approval to abort.

Now of course earlier this week i pointed out that the DUP used biblical verses to attack gay marriage. Someone even tried to tell me that while the civil and ceremonial laws were outlawed the moral ones were to be upheld. Therefore I'm not quite sure why Jim Wells wasn't quoting the following biblical verses to defend his position, the DUP after all have cleared their members to do so.

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. 

Deut 22: 28-29 New Living Translation

  If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

Deut 22: 23-24 NLT 

So why stop at merely letting the women who has suffered at the hands of the rapist go full term and give the child up for adoption, surely the DUP should be marrying her off as this is a tradition form of biblical marriage? One goes on to wonder how any DUP politician would deal with a daughter who found herself pregnant as the victim of rape?

But of course they realise how ridiculous it is to call for that. So instead they merely add to the trauma of removing something that is causing the victim, and let us not forget the woman is a victim of a crime, undo anguish. Any other crime once the police come and take pictures of the evidence the results can be cleared away and people get on with their life, but for rape the DUP are prepared to let women live with the results, that have crashed into their lives unwarranted, for nine months.


Earlier today I did post this from the Huffington Post about how the pro-lifers are so much only looking at the rarer commodity for human reproduction. Of course going again the biblical precedent Onanism as masturbation is also called was because Onon in Genesis 38 while having sex with his dead brother's wife pulled out during sex and prevented her giving her dead husband the heir that was required from his younger brother's seed. God himself put him to death.

New Archbishop hops straight into innuendo and ignorance on LGBT health

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted Matthew 5:4

Though not necessarily from Archbishop Philip Tartaglia, the newly appointed Catholic Archbishop for the Diocese of Glasgow.

I first encountered acute pancreatitis, the disease which struck down David Cairns MP, during my running days, when it struck down one of the men I knew from the long distance road racing circuit. You see on of the less common causes is repeated marathon running and back in the early 90s that was even more of a craze for people. That particular man was in his mid thirties and left a wife and two young children behind when he too died of the disease. He was in very good health you would assume judging by the times he was able to run. Yet his body also succumbed at a young age.

The new Archbishop in his statement says:

"If what I have heard is true about the relationship between physical and mental health of gay men, if it is true, then society has been very quiet about it.

"Recently in Scotland there was a gay Catholic MP who died at the age of 44 or so and nobody said anything and why his body should just shut down at that age, obviously he could have had a disease which would have killed anyone, but you seem to hear so many stories about this kind of thing.

"But society won't address it."

So firstly yes Your Eminence it is a disease that could have killed anyone. So well done on upsetting that man's family, also other sufferers of acute pancreatitis and a great many other people who have family that die young. Medicine is great, but not 100% guaranteed to help up all live to Cardinal retirement age.

As for the mental health problems in gay men. Yes there is a higher prevalence of it. But it is societal issues that cause it. It is churches denying that there are young gay men and women in their midst which leave each individual to struggle on alone until they realise differently. It is the pressure from society, from peers at school, in the workplace, on the sports field to fit in with the heterosexual experience that is freely talked about, when your own experience is often hushed up by society.

So to make his first proclamation again attacking the gay community including those within his church he has carried on adding to that anxiety, mental anguish and worry of many of his flock. Well done.

Maybe we should ask him and other church leaders to help address that.

What the Department has revealed about the Blood Ban #FOI

I have this afternoon received a response to my Freedom of Information Request about the retention of the lifetime ban on Men who have sex with Men (MSM) donating blood. Here is the reply:

Q 1. For minutes of any meetings that the Minister has had pertaining to the SaBTO report "Donation selection criteria review - men who have had sex with men" 8-Sep-11

A:  No minutes held.

    

Q 2. For details of any information that the Minister has received that conflicts with or supports the quantitative and qualitative substance of the above report. Especially that of the two pieces of the evidence that the Minister announced on 17-Jun-12 that he had received in recent weeks.

A:  Two pieces of information may be released.  Please see relevant attachment to this letter and appropriate links later in this reply (overleaf).

    

Q 3. Minutes of any meetings the Minister has had with professionals in the health and LGBT fields, since receiving this new information, regarding their contents.

A: No meetings have taken place.

    

Q 4. Minutes of any meetings or information that the Minister has had regarding people who have had sex with prostitutes or someone from Africa that has led to his conclusion to lift their 12 month deferral period for blood donations to a lifetime ban.

A: No meetings have taken place and no information held.  

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 You wrote to this Department on 17th June 2012 seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act.  Your requests for information are copied below with specific italicised responses.      Q 1. For minutes of any meetings that the Minister has had pertaining to the SaBTO report "Donation selection criteria review - men who have had sex with men" 8-Sep-11 A:  No minutes held.      Q 2. For details of any information that the Minister has received that conflicts with or supports the quantitative and qualitative substance of the above report. Especially that of the two pieces of the evidence that the Minister announced on 17-Jun-12 that he had received in recent weeks. A:  Two pieces of information may be released.  Please see relevant attachment to this letter and appropriate links later in this reply.      Q 3. Minutes of any meetings the Minister has had with professionals in the health and LGBT fields, since receiving this new information, regarding their contents. A: No meetings have taken place.      Q 4. Minutes of any meetings or information that the Minister has had regarding people who have had sex with prostitutes or someone from Africa that has led to his conclusion to lift their 12 month deferral period for blood donations to a lifetime ban. A: No meetings have taken place and no information held.  Q 5. The number of meetings or conversations that the Minister has had regarding their positions and actions on MSM blood donations both before these two new pieces of evidence arose and since with his counterparts in: a) Westminster – none b) Edinburgh - none c) Cardiff – none d) Dublin – no formal meeting however Minister had a conversation with James Reilly, TD at a North/South Ministerial meeting.  Information requested in Q.2 is referred to below and a copy of a letter from Mr Reilly TD, is attached to this letter.      Q 6. Minutes of any meetings or information that the Minister has had regarding as yet undiscovered or undisclosed blood borne diseases that the Minister alluded to on 22-Sep-11. A:  No information held.

I wish to advise you that no Ministerial decision has been made as yet on the lifetime ban on blood donations by men who have had sex with men, and the position remains the same as when you were advised in a previous letter dated 15 November 2011 (FOI 140/2011 refers). Therefore Section 35 1(a) (Formulation of Government Policy) still applies.

It may be helpful if I advise that Section 35 is a qualified exemption, and we are required to assess as objectively as possible whether the balance of public interest favours disclosing or withholding information under this provision.  The Department recognises the general public interest in making this information available for the sake of greater transparency and openness.  However, final decisions have not yet been taken and the Department believes that in this instance, the public interest lies in protecting the policy-making process, and preserving the ability of officials to engage in free and candid discussion of policy options without apprehension that potential courses of action may be held up to scrutiny before they have been fully developed or evaluated.  A copy of the applied Public Interest Test is appended to this letter.

We can however release some information pertaining to your request and to which the Minister referred in a recent interview for the Sunday Politics show, broadcasted on the 17^th June 2012.  These are:

1.      Copy of a letter dated 31 May 2012 from Dr James Reilly T.D. Minister for Health (ROI)

2.      Link to the technical memorandum outlining the results of the study by the Council of Europe

Here is the text of the meat of that letter from the Irish Minister for Health:

The Irish Blood Transfusion Service (IBTS) remit is to provide a safe, reliable and  robust blood service to the Irish health system. Blood, and the products derived from it, are an integral part of healthcare delivery. A major objective of the organisation is to ensure that is always has the necessary programmes and procedures in place to protect both the donors of bl;ood and the recipients of blood and blood products.

 The IBTS has the responsibility to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of safe blood to meet the needs of patients.  In order to supply blood for transfusion all decisions on donation criteria are based on a review of the evidence bearing in mind the desire of individuals, the safety of the recipient, and the tolerance of society in general of any transfusion infection occurring. The exclusion of men who have/or had sex with other men (MSM) from donation is based not only on risk factors from HIV but on other blood borne agents known to be associated with MSM behaviour.

For Ireland, the view of IBTS, is that taking all of these aspects into account, a permanent deferral for men with a history of MSM behaviour should remain in place. This and donor deferral policy in general will be kept under constant review.

So I am somewhat bemused that once again the Minister appears to have announced that he has come to a decision, yet the Department are saying that he has yet to come to one. However, I am grateful that the Department have realised that the public interest in how he has come about his own (if not the department's decision) deems a necessity to have some form of response.

It appears that the Minister has had no meeting with Health Care professionals about the decision comments he has made. He also appears not to have talked to or consulted with the other UK health ministers but has had a brief conversation which led to the above letter with the Republic of Ireland minister. This appears to match the NI Health Minister's earlier utterances about other blood borne infection. But the SaBTO report took those into consideration in its findings.

First up look at the proportion of new diagnosis by groups

Taken from the SaBTO report April 2011

Then consider the incubation and detection periods:

• HBV - 4-6 weeks
• HCV - 50-60 days
• HIV - 1 to 4 weeks (9 day window period 99.9% accurate)

Currently all the tests above ask you to come back after 6 months if you feel you have been exposed to infection to check whether there is infection or not. Of course the new occurence of new HIV infection are out of proportion with the size of that population but look at the rest of the breakdown; fairly in proportion. Then look at some of the detail in that report.

MSM who have Hep C are usually co-diagnosed with HIV which has a shorter window period, indeed the figure is as high as 96%. Hep B new detection is prevalent among migrants from high endemicity indeed this figure also occurs in 96% of cases, so there is some credence to the Minister's earlier comments about people coming from African countries where Hep B epidemic levels exist. So the chances of anyone having any of those infections after a 12 month deferral period is small to impossible and indeed the chance of MSM slipping through the hoop is even less due to concurrency of the majority of Hep C infection with HIV detection.

Also as I have mentioned before MSM, or indeed anyone who visits a GUM clinic, who have regular blood tests are offered a course of Hep B & C inoculation so those who look after themselves are even less likely to have the other infections. Yet this behaviour is not taken into consideration with the ban in place. Nor the fact that those sexually active who have their blood regularly checked are also included in the blanket ban.

The evidence from the SaBTO report has been enough to convince England, Wales and Scotland that a 12 month deferral period is the best option as non-compliance is more likely to happen if MSM have a lifetime ban. But Northern Ireland's health minister appears not to have discussed this issue with any of his counterparts. He is however, happy to take his advice from the IBTS whose quantitative .

FOI Request on MSM Blood Ban - Part Two

Strangely it is almost 9 months since I first sent a Freedom of Information request on this issue. I received two responses the first telling me that the Department of Health, Social Services and Pensions would not be able to respond to me within the required deadline. The second that as the Minister had yet to made a decision on the issue that they could not disclose any information to me at that point.

Well it appears that for the second time, the first is here, Edwin Poots has made a decision.

Therefore it was time to raise a new request both because my deadline for comeback to the previous response had passed and because there was new Information that needed to be requested.

Here is my new request:

 Retention of MSM Lifetime Blood Ban

Dear Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety
(Northern Ireland),

Further to my previous request, your ref FOI 2011/140

I understand that the Minster has now come to a decision which your
previous response, of 15 November, told me you could not disclose
information until he had come to one.

Therefore I'm writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 requesting:

1. For minutes of any meetings that the Minister has had pertaining
to the SaBTO report "Donation selection criteria review - men who
have had sex with men" 8-Sep-11

2. For details of any information that the Minister has received
that conflicts with or supports the quantitative and qualitative
substance of the above report. Especially that of the two pieces of
the evidence that the Minister announced on 17-Jun-12 that he had
received in recent weeks.

3. Minutes of any meetings the Minister has had with professionals
in the health and LGBT fields, since receiving this new
information, regarding their contents.

4. Minutes of any meetings or information that the Minister has had
regarding people who have had sex with prostitutes or someone from
Africa that has led to his conclusion to lift their 12 month
deferral period for blood donations to a lifetime ban.

5. The number of meetings or conversations that the Minister has
had regarding their positions and actions on MSM blood donations
with his counterparts in:
a) Westminster
b) Edinburgh
c) Cardiff
d) Dublin
both before these two new pieces of evidence arose and since.

6. Minutes of any meetings or information that the Minister has had
regarding as yet undiscovered or undisclosed blood borne diseases
that the Minister alluded to on 22-Sep-11.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Glenn

I look forward to finding out how information received in the last couple of weeks can be so startling that it makes up the Minister's mind that has been contemplating SaBTO's very thorough report for over 9 months so rapidly. Not just for my sake but for all the men who have had sex with other men.

Poots taking his lead from Dublin not London on blood donations

Today is Father's day.

About 24 years ago just after I had turned 18 my father took me somewhere that in our family was somewhat of a right of passage, to the Good Templar Hall on Hamilton Road for a cup of tea and a biscuit. Of course before that I had to give a little something in return a unit of my O- blood. Like my father and grandfather I then had a little book showing that I was a blood donor. The last little piece of paper that was placed in that book shows that I gave blood in the week after the Omagh bomb, though I shouldn't have given it as I'd forgot to check the small print.

There was a question that I said no to, probably because my dad was with me and he did not yet know that the answer was yes. The question:

Have you ever if you are man had sex anally or orally, either with or without a condom?

Today is one of those days that I remember that father who gave enough blood through the Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service to earn his gold badge 100 units. Something he was in the Belfast Telegraph for as he did so at Hunterhouse College along with some of his pupils giving their first donation.

But it is also the day that Edwin Poots finally announced that he was going to maintain the lifetime ban on men who have had sex with men giving blood, rather than as the rest of the UK allowing a 12 month deferral period.

But he then went further to say that anybody who engages in risky behaviour should be treated the same. His listed two examples people who have sex with prostitutes who who have sex in sub-Saharan Africa.

Now it may surprise Mr Poots that there are already restrictions in the later two categories, on the Blood Transfusion Service website it says:

You should not give blood for 12 months after sex with:

A man who has had sex with another man (if you're a female).

A prostitute.

Anyone who has ever injected themselves with drugs.

Anyone with haemophilia or a related blood clotting disorder who has received clotting factor concentrates.

Anyone of any race who has been sexually active in parts of the world where AIDS/HIV is very common. This includes countries in Africa.

So there you have it these other 'risky' sexual practices are subject to as referral period of 12 months both here and in the rest of the UK already. The lifetime MSM blood ban ranks up there with people who have worked as a prostitute, injected themselves with drugs, or have ever had syphilis, HTLV (Human T - lymphotropic virus), HIV or hepatitis C.

So is Mr Poots saying that all gay men are as risky as those three?

For a start many gay men regularly get blood tests from the diseases mentioned in the final exclusion. Even in the medical examination performed before a donation a gay man could be asked when he was last tested. Seeing as one of the questions at STI testing is how many sexual partners you have had since the last test this is on the patient records of that individual. A failure for a gay man to have had a blood screen in the last 12 months could be a reason to deny them to donate blood, even though all blood donated is tested.


Is he seriously comparing the many gay men in monogamous relationships with prostitutes? Or intravenous drug users?


It does look as Sue Ramsey, the Sinn Féin chair of the health committee, suggests that he is pandering to his own prejudices and not making the decision based on facts.


Mr Poots did say that he had received two bits of correspondence in the last week. One came from his Irish counterpart informing him that Ireland did not have any plans to lift their lifetime ban. The other advising the the majority of the EU maintained a life time ban. Although Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain and Sweden are like the rest of the UK operating a maximum of the 12 month referral period and not a lifetime ban, as do Australia and New Zealand (5 years).


Indeed Poland has a rather sensible policy based on sexual practice rather than orientation. There people of any sexual orientation involved in any kind of sexual activity are welcome to donate blood, if they are confident that their sexual behaviour is safe and does not expose them to sexually transmitted diseases by i.e. unprotected sex with non-trusted partners, whether homo-, bi- or heterosexual.

There is an cruel irony that the Democratic Unionist health minister is siding with Ireland on this issue while the Sinn Féin chair of his assembly committee wants the UK policy expanded to Northern Ireland. Just who is the unionist?

Update I've done a little further reading since yesterday. In the USA there are calls in congress to look at alternatives to their MSM gay blood ban (Poots cited the example of the USA as one he was following in keeping the ban).  France one of the EU's largest countries by population is about to lift its blanket ban on MSM blood donation, looking not at "nature of sexual relations or sexual inclination" but on the "multiplicity of partners" as the way to deal with risky behaviour.

Illness is no respecter of Government set time limits #WelfareReformBill

Just under five years ago stubborn old me didn't take time off for recovery. I struggled through my working days and often collapsed in a heap in the evenings and at the weekends. Most of those who saw me on a daily basis didn't know I was sick, let alone that when I said see you on Monday I was heading off for a course of treatment every other Friday.

I could have taken a reduction in hours. I may even have qualified for Employment and Support Allowance. I didn't, but what if my reaction to the treatment were worse (and having said that it was bad enough). Suppose I hadn't been in my late 30s and reasonably fit, but in my early 60s, like my father was, and knocked sideways by the same illness the same treatment. Suppose like him it came back after that first course of treatment, not within 12 months as was his case but at the end of that period? What if like that the return of the illness was more virulent, took longer for me to recover, or even required me to take more draining treatment to try and rid me of it?

What would have happened then, if the decision made by the MPs today was in place then and I fond myself in that situation? The reason I'm asking is that I am currently waiting tests to see if that worse case scenario that the illness has returned is the case. But the Government including members of my party, some of whom knew that I disappeared for the best part of a year five years ago, have decided that the ESA that I may well have been relying on would have been cut back. For someone that was willing to work, able to work, maybe even someone who had worked as often as he could have.

There is a golden figure from when the disease has been cleared away that you can really say that you are over it. The MPs today put a timescale on that of 12 months, yet my doctors and specialists won't say that about this disease for a whole 5 years. It can return at any point, either within that first 12 months or at any point from then on. Even after the 5 years are up you are out of the woods completely but merely said to be in remission, it can still return.

This is just one example of why the Lords amendments were right and the commons were wrong to whip through so much opposition against all of them today in the Welfare Reform Bill.

So yeah if you have read this far in this post my name is Stephen and I am a cancer survivor, though the government today seems determined to make it harder for fellow survivors to get by.

And when the press talk about Lib Dem 'rebels' on this welfare reform bill, let us remember that those who were voting to retain the Lords amendments were doing so at the behest of conference on many occasions today. So just who were the rebels?

Contributory Employment and Support Allowance - the Letter from Lib Dem Candidates

You may have read about the letter from over 50 approved Liberal Democrat candidates many of them having stood on the parties manifesto in 2010, urging our party in the Commons to accept the three Lords' amendments, regarding contributory Employment and Support Allowance (cESA) in the Welfare Reform Bill.

In particular the amendments call for:

• The amount of time a person can receive cESA will be extended to at least 24 months, instead of the Government’s proposed 12 month limit.
• Cancer patients will be exempted from the time limit.
• The ‘youth provision’ of the benefit will be protected, meaning that young disabled people who cannot work will still be entitled to cESA without having made National Insurance contributions.

These eESA is paid for people whose conditions mean that they will at some point make a return to employment, but due to illness or disability are unable to do so at the moment. It is also paid out only to people with sufficient national insurance contributions through there working life.

The Conservatives seem to think that by cutting all benefits they are encouraging people to get back, or into work. They seem to bundle up all people living with some form of sickness or disability allowance as some work-shy, scrounging, non-productive member of society.

Those with a cESA claim are not people that fit that description indeed many will have tried to carry on working as best they could until they were unable to do so. They all for whatever reason need time to heal, maybe learn to overcome a new disability, but mostly to get well enough to return to the job they live. By in large this will be achieved within 2 years hence the higher threshold as amended by the Lords.

The one exception is cancer sufferers. As anyone who knows anyone who has cancer will tell you no cancer survivor will say that they are free of cancer until 5 years after the success of their first treatment all-clear. This medically is the time scale at which Doctors will officially say that the survivor is in remission. At times up to that point the survivor will have high and low periods and may very well at the point of 23 months find that their cancer may scarily enough return. That is the reason for the exception for cancer survivors as not even their Doctors can give them the all clear in two years and the disease can return at any point.

You can read the full letter here, and yes that is my signature second on the list of 2010 candidates.

But as my friend Caron points out, it isn't just enough for people like myself and others who are candidates, former MPs, new MPs, on the Leadership programme, GLA candidates or councillors but we need ordinary members and constituents to add their voices as well. Write to you MP, of whatever party, and urge them to support these amendments.

What would Andrew Reeves do about Steve Jobs cause of death?

One of my first thoughts about the fact that Steve Jobs died yesterday of pancreatic cancer is that I'm sure Andrew Reeves would have used the fact that he too lost his dearly beloved mother to the same disease as a really from the heart plea for people to donate to research into one of the most virulent types of cancer that there is.

How am I so sure, because he chose the day that was his mother's birthday earlier this year to get married to someone else he loved immensely, his dear husband Roger. He even mentioned his mother's disease on that day.

He of course wrote about the first Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Week back in 2009. When he mentioned some of the really heart breaking facts:

• Pancreatic cancer only has a 3% survival rate, that hasn't improved in forty years.
• It's the 5th most common cause of caner death in the UK
• Survival rates for pancreatic cancer are extremely low – 4-6 months on average after diagnosis, with the 5 year survival rates less than 3%.

He may of course have told you all how almost a year ago he took part in a 10k race at Hopetoun House, largely because the charity he was being asked to run with Bev, Elspeth, Siobhan and Fiona was Cancer Research. It may have been only 1 hour 19 minutes of his life, and he would have easily rattled off several blog posts about pancreatic cancer in that time, but is was an period of time he was proud to have given to the cause.

However, of course I'm not 100% sure what Andrew would have been doing as soon as he learnt of Steve Jobs death. All I can guess is that he would have made a plea for pancreatic cancer.

That is why most of all and no matter what he would have used today and the sad news of Steve Jobs death to the same disease to highlight two worthy charities dedicated to pancreatic cancer, Pancreatic Cancer Research Fund and Pancreatic Cancer UK.


So as Andrew is no longer around to ask you to do it yourself let me on his behalf say, although the death of Steve Jobs from pancreatic cancer is a terrible loss, so to is the next person to die of pancreatic cancer. Therefore, please give generously and if you are able please give with gift aid as well so that the tax you've paid on your donation is also given to the cause. How to donate.

Sorry Luv this Ambulance Ain't Going Sarf o the River

This Sunday UK Uncut plan to block Westminster Bridge. It isn't clear for how long they intend to do this.

However, as their press release notes:

Westminster Bridge, one of London's most iconic landmarks, lies between the Houses of Parliament on the north of the river and St. Thomas' Hospital on the south. UK Uncut claims that "by blocking Westminster Bridge, we symbolically block the bill from getting from Parliament to our hospitals". In a message to supporters entitled "Block the Bridge, Block the Bill", the group encourages participants to adopt tactics including lying in pools of fake blood, performing pretend operations and having picnics overlooking Parliament.

There is an issue with this.

St. Thomas' is the main hospital for the City of Westminster, the bridge is the normal access point. With a blocking of the bridge and possibly a police presence around the area to deal with the protest access to St. Thomas' Hospital is liable to be restricted. Therefore forcing emergency services to have to try and get to Guys or St. Barts. This could lead to a delay in these emergency services .

Some of the above would apply on a normal day. October 9th isn't a normal day. The Bridge will already be closed off as part of the Royal Parks Half Marathon route. So ironically UK Uncut will be blocking off an already blocked off bridge but on top of that will be causing disruptions around an NHS facility possibly causing it to refuse to take emergency cases.

In which the Alliance health spokesperson doesn't get it

I've been reading the reactions of the various health spokespeople on the position taken by the DUP's Health Minister Edwin Poots not to join his colleague in Wales and Scotland in following SaBTO's recommendations to introduce a 12 month deferral period on men who have sex with men (MSM) from giving blood.

However, I am shocked of the reacation of the Health Spokesperson of the Lib Dems so called sister party here in Northern Ireland. Kieran McCarthy has said:

"I am extremely annoyed that Edwin Poots is not going to lift a ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood. It is disgraceful that he is refusing to lift this ban. What sort of message does this send out?
"We must have a society based on fairness and this refusal to lift this ban is deeply troubling. This refusal sets a very worrying precedent.
"The Health Minister should be encouraging more people to give blood instead of maintaining this despicable ban."

For a start some of those currently banned would identify as straight, bi or gay. Some of those who would be allowed ot give blood after 12 months deferral would identify as gay, straight or bi. SaBTO's definition is MSM. The Blood Transfusion Services definition of MSM is men who have had sex with another man, either anally or orally, with or without a condom.

Let me explain to Kieran just who that covers. Of course there are gay men that is obvoious, it includes those who have been and are in monogamous relationships, which is part of the reason the Lib Dems voted this week that even the 12 month deferral period was not based on science.

There will be bisexual men. But the SaBTO recommendations will only allow those who over the last twelve months been with exclusively female partner(s) to give blood, those with a mixture of exclusively male partner(s) over that time would not be allowed to donate.

Then there are straight men who are currently banned from giving blood. They have have had an experimental MSM incident or period while they were younger and didn't like it. Therefore they know they are exclusively straight and would identify as such.

There are indeed even some gay men, who have not had sex for 12 months who will be allowed to give blood after 12 months either voluntary or involuntary sexual abstinence.

There are also the straight female partners of bisexual men who will be lifted out of their lifetime ban (although it is really only their 12 month deferral from sleeping for an MSM) should they stay together in an monogamous relationship.

What the Alliance Health Spokeperson has got wrong with the basic language of which MSM groups are affected throws doubt on on much he really gets the depths of the issue. The refusal doesn't so much set the precedent but follows on the precedent of various DUP elected representatives in relation to LGBT issues. Personally I'm shocked that a Unionist politician such as Poots should want to take an independent look at science from the rest of the Union, surely that is sepratist talk!

See also Stigma not Science: Keeping the Blood Ban in Northern Ireland

A step forward but still blood discrimination

So the government's Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood has decided that men who have not had sex with other men can give blood after 12 months. This brings them into line with the rule on women who have had sex with men who have had sex with other men (of course that depends if they are aware that a men they have slept with was bisexual).

However, such a rule change is still discriminatory. There is still an exclusion on monogamous homosexuals who are in long term relationships, while promiscuous heterosexuals are allowed to give blood. Also the ban on men who have sex with other men includes those who do so orally or anally with or without a condom. Yet there is no request of heterosexuals on whether they practise safe sex or not. The only exception is using prostitutes, or sleeping with someone from sub-Saharan Africa when it comes to sexual practise.

What we are looking for is a rule change based on practise rather than carte blanche ban. While this new rule is good to those men who are bisexual, or had a one off experiment in their youth it still discriminates against those gay men who couple up monogamously, who constantly practise safe sex, providing they are sexually active.

If you think it is not discriminatory to ban man who have sex from other men from having sex think of those who work in an office that brings a blood transfusion van unto the site. They ask employees to sign up for sessions, yet every time some healthy men are not putting their name forward. They are constantly being asked by colleagues why. The reason of course is that they know they cannot give blood under these rules, but they have to come out to people who aren't their direct colleagues as a result.

Practise not pretence should be the only rules governing the giving of blood. If a gay man has a history of clean bloods and a history of safe sex they should not be prevented from giving blood, while men who father four children from four random one night stands are able to give.

Jim Well's response watch Day 7

Me with QUBSU VP Welfare Adam McGibbon

As we know last week Jim Wells said:

"I understand that you [Belfast Pride] contacted my Kilkeel office regarding what is termed a 'Belfast Pride' debate.

"As you are probably know I find the behavior of those who take part in this march totally repugnant.

"I do not thereforee wish to be association in any way with this event.

"My position on this matter will not change in the future and I would politely suggest that any further requests of this nature will be a total waste of your time."

As one of the Northern Irish LGBT community, and the LGBT people of faith community who has also been to a Wells' family event I thought I'd give him to the right to clarify just what he meant in that statement and his subsequent comments to Diana Rusk at the Irish news.

It is now 7 days on from the Pride on the Hill event and Mr Wells has yet to answer the following questions that I posed to him on 26 July.

1) You turned down an invite to a debate as part of the festival not to the parade itself by saying that you found the behavior of those at the parade totally repugnant. As the areas covered included the higher level of LGBT teens who commit suicide, adoption by L&G couples, heteronormative views and traditions within schools etc some of this is within a Health remit. Does your statement that your "position on this matter will not change in the future and I would politely suggest that any further requests of this nature will be a total waste of your time" mean that you are never likely to meet with LGBT groups to discuss such issues?

2) You said you found the costumes and behaviour of those who take part in such parades repugnant. I'll be wearing my kilt with daywear sporran and casual shirt, my activities will be to march in beat to the music and represent my party. How is this anymore repugnant than many other parades that take place in this wee country of ours?

3) Diana Rusk reposted that you were asked if it was the behaviour of the participants that he felt were "repugnant" and not the activities of gay people, to which you said you had no comment. That is a political evasion that the LGBT community see as avoiding giving an awkward answer. As John McCallister said yesterday "The DUP don't condemn same sex cohabitees, or everyone who has sex outside marriage, bacause there are too many of them." The implication being that your party's refusal to meet and answer questions of the LGBT sector under part 1 of Section 75 is to do with electoral maths rather than a matter of principle. How do you respond to that and do you want to answer Diana's original question?

4) There is anger in the LGBT community at the DUP's continued marginalisation and apparent demonisation of the community. While the party talks about being newly progressive, how can continued non-attendance or no comment on issues raised about the LGBT members of our shared society be seen as condusive from the party with the largest level of support?

Still no response. I don't think there is anything in these questions that could be construed in anyway repugnant. We wonder if we will ever get answers.

Stonewall UK, only no NI in Stonewall

Stonewall use the Twitter name stonewalluk however this is a misnomer. They only operate in England, Wales and Scotland. I thought I'd take their sexual health survey and only got so far when I got this page when I couldn't answer with one of the four countries of the UK (only the three listed above were available).

Yup you guessed it another UK wide organisation that doesn't want to include Northern Irish data in its reporting. Which if they are presenting this data to Parliament ends ups being misleading, as it is not inclusive.