It seems like only months ago I was yet again writing you letters threatening to firebomb your office (legal disclaimer: not really), while you continued to be raging jackasses. I’m coming to think that you’re my most frequent pen-pal, and I’m not sure how to feel about that. Just like I’m not sure how to feel about your recent reversal of position on the Canadian blood donation ban for Men who have Sex with Men (MSM).

You told The Star on Thursday:

“A lifetime ban extending by one year every year is just not sustainable,” Lorna Tessier, director of public relations at Canadian Blood Services told the Star on Wednesday.

“There have been lots of changes in the environment, lots of changes in testing (and) lots of changes on the international front.” (Source: The Star)

What the hell? Through the magic of the internet, and my righteous indignation, I can tell you that 4 months ago you were telling us this in response to why you continue to uphold the ban:

“This and all our policies are based on sound scientific evidence, sound facts about risks and are intended to reduce or pre-empt the introduction of risks to recipients of blood products,” said CEO Dr. Graham Sher.

So why the change of heart? Really. I have no clue what prompted this shocking reversal of position. I mean, you sued a man for lying on his application form about having sexual contact with another man, and you defended the ban quite heartily in court. There’s nothing that happened recently that I could think would make you decide any differently. Maybe you finally read my letters?

So your approach is finally science-based:

Tessier said the agency is committed to researching what an appropriate restriction would be and is funding a $500,000 grant administered by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, which has been open for applications since 2008.

The agency will then formally ask Health Canada to change the policy based on its findings.

She said the timeline is hard to predict, but added: “We are committed. There is definitely no doubt about that.”

Although as one critic echoed, it may be a stalling technique to avoid dealing with the issue for a while, but I’m always on the side of science, and if that’s what they need to provide evidence for Health Canada, and feel comfortable with recommending new changes, then I say go for it.

The most frustrating part of the ban is that it’s based in public fear, and societal prejudices that unfairly target a sexual orientation instead of sexual histories. It’s science, and you just can’t argue with science:

The American Association of Blood Banks, America’s blood centres and the American Red Cross say the ban is, quote ‘medically and scientifically unwarranted,’ end quote” (National Public Radio—NPR).

Canadian Blood Services has been whining around town for more blood donations as they’re desperately needed. Maybe this will help alleviate the concerns, provided they make a good case for it. It’s a little too early to call success, but I think that repeatedly reinforcing the message that CBS as a science-based body should govern policies through science, and that we won’t tolerate unscientific bigotry will keep the pressure up to show results.

Still, Canadian Blood Services, you confuse me terribly. I have no clue what’s going on, but it sounds like you’re starting to see the light of reason.

So. Um. Yay?

Fuck you Canadian Blood Services (CBS). No group frustrates me even more than you because you meld bigotry with bad science under the guise of public safety. You’re in the business of saving lives, but that admirable goal apparently does not preclude you from being assholes. Continuously.

Yesterday marked an Ontario court’s ruling to uphold the ban on Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) from donating blood. The ban indefinitely prevents any man who’s had sexual contact (oral/anal) with another man since 1977 from donating blood.

The court’s ruling yesterday infuriates me to no end, but I must begrudgingly agree with the Justice for her legal ruling:

In dismissing a constitutional challenge of that policy, Ontario Superior Court Justice Catherine Aitken ruled that Canadian Blood Services is not a government entity, so the Charter of Rights does not apply.

Fair enough, but my problem is with CBS insisting that an outright ban on gay blood is the necessary course of action for “safety”. It’s true that there is a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS and other STIs in the MSM populus, but unlike other categories that deny donation for a period (6 months for tattoos/piercings, for example), in order to assure safety, MSM blood is banned forever no matter the safety or health record of the individual.

What’s problematic is the automatic assumption that any man who’s had sexual contact with another man is permanently ruined and is symptomatic of a greater cultural homophobia. The window for HIV infection to appear during our highly reliable methods of testing is 90 days after contact. A more reasonable ban would be even a 6-month ban on MSM since their last sexual contact. To say that MSM can never donate blood is tantamount to saying that all gay sex gives you AIDS and is unscientific and bigoted. In fact, risky heterosexual sexual contact only prevents you from donating for a period instead of forever. What would be more reasonable is to view all potential donors in terms of their individual sexual and medical history instead of creating a double standard. Especially since heterosexual women are the fastest and largest growing population for new HIV infection. What CBS is saying is that risky sexual behaviour is okay to donate after a safety period much like any other activity that potentially introduces risk into the blood supply. Gay sex? Forget it, that’s always dangerous, and forever.

So I direct my fury at CBS who dares to declare:

“This and all our policies are based on sound scientific evidence, sound facts about risks and are intended to reduce or pre-empt the introduction of risks to recipients of blood products,” said CEO Dr. Graham Sher.

No, it’s not. It’s bigotry disguised as science:

The American Association of Blood Banks, America’s blood centres and the American Red Cross say the ban is, quote ‘medically and scientifically unwarranted,’ end quote” (National Public Radio—NPR).

At any rate, it’s been a longstanding battle, and “Blood donation is a gift — a privilege and not a right, Sher noted”. So here’s the deal, CBS, your policies are unscientific and bigoted regardless of how much you cover it in rhetoric about safety. Cut the crap; a systemic fear and automatic association between gay sex and AIDS is behind this policy, and your idiotic ban only perpetuates this.

I wrote CBS a letter last Xmas and encouraged everyone to do the same. My sentiments have not changed:

[I wrote this e-mail to Canadian Blood services, whom I urge you also contact at feedback@blood.ca because of my continued outrage at them and to avoid doing my last bit of studying for my finance final.]

To Whom It May Concern:

As the holiday season approaches, I am beset with messages on behalf of your organization to give blood because of its need, and because it is “the most precious gift”. Its importance is undeniable to the health and life of people in Canada and I wholeheartedly agree that it should be in the forefront of all healthy individuals’ minds to donate and give blood as often as possible.

That being said, your men having sex with men (MSM) policy places a blanket ban on all gay men and men engaging in gay sex. This policy has been explicitly explained away due to “new techniques available to screen the blood supply for HIV/AIDS [and] the American Association of Blood Banks, America’s blood centres and the American Red Cross say the ban is, quote ‘medically and scientifically unwarranted,’ end quote” (National Public Radio—NPR).

The issue becomes one not only of discrimination, but of bad science. Your organization claims to have a desperate need for blood but precludes an entire segment of the population from giving should they medically test as viable. As such, the need obviously does not outweigh bigotry. In this case bigotry does not hurt only socially, but medically; individuals who are hurt, sick, or dying are not given the chance to have their medical needs answered in favour of antiquated, unscientific claims of risk to the blood supply.

So this holiday season while your radio, poster, and television campaigns remind me that “blood is in [me] to give”, I am desperately urging friends and family to boycott the donation of blood. Evidently the gift of blood is worthless if it comes from a man who has had sexual contact with another man under any circumstances. Thus, it must not be as precious a gift as you claim.

I urge you to carefully review your policy and consider its social and medical ramifications. But until the ban is lifted, I am making it a priority to encourage all individuals to avoid your organization like the plague you claim gay men carry.

Happy Holidays, and I wonder if you’ll give better consideration to the gifts you give and receive personally than the gift of life. If it’s so easily cast aside, I shudder for your loved ones.

Yours in the spirit of holiday giving,

Kris Schmidt

I don’t care how much you whine, cajole, and complain for more blood donations. That gift I have for you? You don’t want it. Only this time it’s not an ugly sweater, it’s life. Shame.