LGBT Indians demand end to 'discriminatory' ban on blood donation

In India, a significant issue has arisen regarding blood donation policies that affect the LGBT community. Current laws prohibit transgender individuals and gay or bisexual men from donating blood, a situation that many in the LGBT community deem discriminatory. Despite a landmark ruling in 2018 that legalized gay sex, the ban on blood donation remains in place, prompting activists to challenge this outdated policy in court. Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli, a trans woman from Hyderabad, shared her personal experience of being unable to donate blood for her mother, who was critically ill and required regular transfusions. She described the emotional toll of having to seek blood donors through social media platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook, a process she found to be deeply distressing. Fortunately, she managed to find donors, but many others in similar situations are not as lucky. Another poignant story comes from Beoncy Laisharam, a doctor in Manipur, who recounted the tragic case of a father whose transgender daughter was unable to donate blood for his treatment. The father, who needed multiple units of blood daily, ultimately passed away due to the lack of available donors. These heartbreaking narratives have motivated individuals like Sharif Rangnekar, a 55-year-old writer and activist, to file a petition in India's Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the ban on blood donation for LGBT individuals. The government justifies this prohibition by labeling LGBT people as high-risk groups for HIV-Aids, a stance rooted in policies established during the 1980s when the HIV-Aids epidemic was at its peak. Critics argue that these policies are not only outdated but also perpetuate harmful stereotypes about the LGBT community. The petition filed by Rangnekar asserts that the current blood donation regulations are prejudicial and violate the fundamental rights of equality, dignity, and life for LGBT individuals. The Supreme Court has requested a response from the federal government regarding this petition and has linked it to two other similar cases that are currently pending. In a previous court hearing, the government defended the ban by referencing a 2021 health ministry report, which claimed that transgender individuals and gay or bisexual men are six to thirteen times more likely to contract HIV compared to the general population. Dr. Joy Mammen, an expert in blood transfusion, stated that the government's policy aims to mitigate health risks without moral judgment. However, many critics argue that the policy is rooted in stigma and discrimination, making LGBT individuals feel marginalized and insignificant. They point out that other groups with HIV are not subjected to similar bans, highlighting the inconsistency in the policy. India is home to millions of LGBT individuals, with estimates suggesting that the true population could exceed 135 million. Many of these individuals face discrimination and are often forced to leave their families. Activists argue that the blood donation ban severely limits their access to essential medical care, as it prevents them from receiving blood from their partners or chosen families in emergencies. Sahil Choudhary, an LGBT activist, raised a critical question: 'If there's a blanket ban on blood donation by LGBT people, how do you expect community members to receive help in emergency situations? ' In many cases, potential donors may feel pressured to conceal their sexual orientation when filling out mandatory forms for blood donation, all in an effort to save the life of a loved one. The demand for blood transfusions in India is substantial, with a published study estimating an annual deficit of around one million units of blood. Activists like Thangjam Santa Singh, who petitioned the court against the ban, argue that Indian laws are outdated, especially as many countries have moved away from restrictions on LGBT blood donors in recent years. For instance, the United States lifted all restrictions on gay and bisexual men donating blood, opting instead to screen donors based on their recent sexual behavior. This approach allows for a more individualized assessment of risk, utilizing advanced testing technologies that can quickly detect HIV cases. The UK has implemented similar guidelines, and other countries such as Brazil, Ireland, Canada, France, and Greece have also eased restrictions. Petitioners in India advocate for a system that assesses blood donation eligibility based on actual risk rather than perceived risk. They believe that the government should consider a deferral period based on a donor's recent sexual history instead of imposing a blanket ban on the entire LGBT community. 'This makes me feel like I am not human,' Singh expressed, emphasizing the emotional toll of the current policy. The Indian government has opposed these suggestions, arguing that the healthcare system is not prepared for such changes. In its response to previous petitions, the government stated that advanced blood testing technologies, such as nucleic-acid testing, are only available at a limited number of blood banks in India. Dr. Mammen noted that the systems in place are not rigorous enough to ensure privacy and confidentiality, which are essential for individuals to feel comfortable disclosing their sexual history. However, many members of the LGBT community remain unconvinced by these arguments and are determined to continue their fight against the discriminatory ban. 'I keep thinking how I wouldn’t be able to donate blood to my family in case of urgent need,' Rangnekar lamented. 'I do not want to spend the rest of my life trying to find ways around these obstacles.