The LGBTQI lobby’s demands on blood donation are irresponsible right now

Given the figures released a few days ago, which show a remarkable exponential increase in the number of new HIV cases this year in men who have sex with men, the demand made by the LGBTQI lobby that “gays” be allowed to donate blood seems particularly self-centred and irresponsible.

The lobby group led by Gabi Calleja reiterated its demands last July.

In the last general election campaign, Muscat had made a big show of challenging the blood bank chief about the ban, in front of the media. He did this purposely to suck up for the gay vote.

All this is disingenuous, though. There is no ban on “gays” donating blood but only on men who have sex with other men donating blood. Some men who occasionally have sex with other men are actually straight but with a fetish, or they are bisexual.

Gabi Calleja, like all other non-heterosexual women, is free to donate as much blood as she pleases. Lesbians are not an HIV risk category. Nor are gay men who don’t have sex with anyone.

The LGBTQI lobby speaks as though there is some kind of natural right to donate blood. There’s isn’t any such right. But there is a right of people who have no choice but to accept a blood donation for their survival to be sure that the blood is not contaminated in any way.

The way the lobby speaks and puts forward its demands leaves me with the impression that its members are far more interested in themselves and their status than they are in donating blood to help others.

If they gave a damn about others, they would not act to put them at risk, however minuscule that risk might be.

One of my friends 30 years ago was among the several Maltese haemophiliacs who contracted HIV, which later developed into full-blown AIDS, from a batch of HIV-contaminated blood in the mid-1980s, at around the time when the HIV virus was just discovered and people were beginning to die from the mysterious disease called AIDS. It was an awful business.

True, blood is now screened – but why on earth add to the likelihood of contamination, leading to wastage of time, money and blood, by not reducing the risk at the outset?

The inability to donate blood does not affect an individual’s life in any way. It’s not marriage, or adoption, or a job, or a promotion. It’s not even something fun or enjoyable. The way this particular battle is being fought just makes it so obvious that it’s all about the wish to end perceived ‘discrimination’ even in this area, regardless of whether they want to donate blood or not.

But it’s not discrimination. It’s failure to qualify. It’s not linked to sexuality, but to sexual activity. If I’m not allowed to get a job as a hairdresser, it’s not because I’m being discriminated against. It’s because I’m not qualified to be let loose on other people’s hair as I might do them damage.