India’s LGBT Blood Donation Ban Remains Despite 2018 Ruling on Gay Sex

In a major verdict in 2018, India’s top court legalised gay sex; however, transgender persons and gay and bisexual males are still barred from donating blood.

LGBT people claim the decades-old restriction is “discriminatory” and have taken legal action to overturn it.

Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli’s mother had monthly blood transfusions while on her deathbed due to advanced Parkinson’s disease.

Ms Mogli, a trans woman living in the southern city of Hyderabad, was unable to donate blood despite being her mother’s primary carer.

“I had to keep posting [requests for blood donors] on WhatsApp and Facebook groups,” she said, characterising the process as “traumatising”.

Ms Mogli was fortunate in finding donors for her mother, but many others aren’t.

Beoncy Laisharam, a doctor in the north-eastern state of Manipur, described the experience of one of her patients, whose transgender daughter was unable to donate blood for his treatment.

“The father needed two to three units of blood every day. “They were unable to find blood from other sources,” she explained.

“He died two days after being brought in.”

Such experiences prompted Sharif Ragnerka, a 55-year-old writer and activist, to submit a petition with India’s Supreme Court challenging the ban on LGBT blood donations.

Indian regulations restrict LGBT individuals from donating blood since they are high-risk groups for HIV-AIDS; donors must be clear of infections transmissible by blood transfusion.

The regulation dates back to the 1980s, when other countries adopted similar prohibitions to combat a global HIV/AIDS epidemic that claimed thousands of lives.

Despite shifts in attitudes, subsequent regulations have kept the restriction in place, including the most recent rule draughted in 2017.

The petition, filed in July, claims that existing blood donation standards are “highly prejudicial and presumptive” and violate the LGBT community’s fundamental rights to “equality, dignity, and life”.

The court has asked the federal government to react to Mr Ragnerka’s plea and has linked it to two other outstanding court matters from 2021 and 2023.

In a previous session, the government supported the ban by referencing a 2021 health ministry research that stated transgender individuals, gay and bisexual males were “six to 13 times” more likely to contract HIV than the general population.

“The government’s policy is for risk mitigation with no moral judgement attached,” said Dr Joy Mammen, a blood transfusion expert.

However, detractors argue that the approach is discriminatory, based on shame, and makes individuals feel “excluded and insignificant”.

“Other genders also have HIV positive people, but their entire community is not banned [from donating blood],” Dr Beoncy said, adding that the ban reinforces existing stereotypes.

India is home to an estimated tens of millions of LGBT individuals. The Indian government estimated the country’s population to be 2.5 million in 2012, although global estimates believe it could be more than 135 million.

Many experience discrimination and are forced to abandon their family.

Campaigners claim that the ban restricts their access to critical medical care by prohibiting them from obtaining blood from their partners or “chosen families”.

“If there’s a blanket ban on blood donation by LGBT people, how do you expect community members to receive help in emergency situations?” questioned Sahil Choudhary, an LGBT activist.

In many cases, donors may feel obligated to lie about their sexual orientation when filling out a necessary blood donation form in order to save the life of a loved one.

Activists claim that the ban is not only discriminatory, but also unreasonable, given the country’s enormous demand for blood transfusions.

In 2022, the Public Library of Science reported that India had an annual blood shortfall of approximately one million units.

Thangjam Santa Singh, a transgender rights activist who filed a court challenge against the prohibition last year, claims that the present Indian rules are out of date, citing the fact that numerous countries have removed bans on LGBT blood donors.

Last year, the United States removed all bans on gay and bisexual males donating blood. Donors are now screened based on whether they have engaged in “high-risk sexual behaviour” rather than sexual orientation.

All prospective donors must complete a questionnaire about their recent sexual history. Those who have had a new sexual partner, several sexual partners, or had anal intercourse in the previous three months are urged to wait three months before giving blood.

The idea is that improved testing technology enables speedier detection of HIV cases, allowing potential donors to safely give blood based on an individual risk assessment.

In 2021, the UK implemented similar guidelines. Other countries that have lifted or loosened prohibitions include Brazil, the Republic of Ireland, Canada, France, and Greece.

Petitioners claim that India should implement an individual-centric blood donation system based on “actual risk” rather than “perceived risk.”

Ms Singh suggested that the Indian government consider implementing a deferral period based on the donor’s recent sexual history rather than completely denying the LGBT population the ability to give.

“This makes me feel like I am not human,” she told me.

The Indian government has rejected this, claiming that the country’s healthcare system is unprepared for the change.

In response to previous petitions brought before the Supreme Court, the federal government stated that modern blood testing technology, such as nucleic acid testing, which is widely used in other countries, were only accessible in a “small fraction” of blood banks in India.

“In India, the systems are not rigorous enough,” stated Dr. Mammen.

This applies not only to “testing,” but also to “ensuring an environment of privacy and confidentiality so that people feel comfortable answering questions about their sexual history,” he said.

However, members of the community are not convinced and say they will continue to battle the “prejudiced ban”.

“I keep thinking how I wouldn’t be able to donate blood to my family in case of urgent need,” says Ragnerka.

“I do not want to spend the rest of my life trying to find ways around these obstacles.”

Source: BBC