“They said, ‘By the way, you have hepatitis C,’” McCarthy recalls. “I said, ‘What’s that?’ And they said, ‘Don’t worry, it’ll take years to kill you.’”

McCarthy is among thousands of hemophiliacs who used blood transfusions for decades to manage his disorder. And he, along with thousands of other Canadians during the major 1980s tainted blood crisis, contracted something far worse than what he was trying to treat.

Now, a company that pays for plasma donations is looking to set up in New Brunswick, reigniting this decades-old ethical debate on blood.

In the 1980s, the Red Cross controlled Canada’s blood supply. The organization was slow to implement donor screening and blood testing regulations. As a result, more than 30,000 Canadians were infected with hepatitis C and HIV from blood transfusions.

After investigating the scandal, the Krever Inquiry recommended, in 1993, that the Canadian Blood Services be founded, and that all blood donations be made voluntarily—no more paid donations. It’s a seemingly small move, but it has drastically improved the blood supply.

“Most people who sell their blood plasma are from vulnerable populations, having a difficult time, or they’re students,” explains Kat Lanteigne, co-founder of BloodWatch.org, a non-profit advocating for voluntary blood donations. “They’re more inspired or willing to cut corners because they need the money.” And when plasma donation centres were paying for donations, Lanteigne says, they targeted these demographics.

Canadian Plasma Resources (CPR), which pays its donors, set up shop in Saskatchewan in early 2016, and is eyeing New Brunswick next; Health Minister Victor Boudreau has so far welcomed the idea.

Lanteigne says this could lead to catastrophe. In addition to health concerns, studies from the European Blood Alliance show that once people expect payment for donations, only one in six
people will donate voluntarily.

Health Canada issued CPR a licence, but it’s up to individual provinces to allow the company to operate. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization advises against paid donations, and is advocating for 100 percent voluntary donations of plasma and tissue by 2020.

For McCarthy, it’s too high a risk: “This is a not-so-gentle reminder that we can’t forget the lessons learned in the past.”

The change took effect July 22, and marks a drastic departure from the organization’s previous policies concerning blood donation from the MSM category of donor, a blanket term used to describe gay men and other males who have, at any point in their lives, had sex with men.

Before the policy change, if a potential male donor had had sex with a man since 1977, he couldn’t give blood. Now, the deferral time is five years—a donor who falls into the  MSM category can give blood if he has had absolutely no sexual contact with another man for at least five years.

This can be interpreted as a step in the right direction. Certainly, Canadian Blood Services would like us to think so. In a press release announcing the change Dr. Dana Devine, VP of Medical, Scientific and Research Affairs at the organization said: “It’s the right thing to do and we are committed to regular review of this policy as additional data emerge and new technologies are implemented.”

In fact, we are still smack dab in the middle of the spectrum—the National Blood Service in the U.K. has a deferral time of one year. In the U.S., if a man has ever had sex with a man he can’t give blood, though the American Red Cross and other U.S. blood donation services have called for a change to 12 months, saying there is no reason why those who fall under the MSM category should be banned from donation while those with similar sexual practices are not.

Canadian Blood Services tests all donated blood for HIV and other transmissible illnesses before it becomes available for transfusion, and HIV testing can detect the virus as early as three weeks after infection—so why the five year deferral?

Canadian Blood Services will point to statistics to justify the restriction: Those in the MSM category still make up a large portion of both those living with HIV and the newly diagnosed. As of 2011, 46.7 percent of those living with HIV/AIDS in Canada were MSM, as were 46.6 percent of new infections.

While these statistics can give pause, they’re still not enough to justify the five-year wait period. The U.K. blood donation service changed its policy to one year in 2011, after a review of blood donor selection criteria determined a lifetime exclusion for men who’ve had sex with men wasn’t medically justifiable.

What’s more, in Canada the deferral time is only one year for those who engage in heterosexual sex with someone who is HIV positive.

Let’s put it this way: if a woman had sex with an HIV positive man, she could potentially give blood 12 months later. In Canada, if a man has had sex with any man, HIV-positive or not, he can’t give blood for five years. That, to put it bluntly, is discrimination, not protection.

Pierre Trudeau. Bill C-150, passed by his government on May 15, 1969, ushered in a new era of human rights in Canada.

Tomorrow, let’s take a moment to reflect on the 42nd anniversary of the passing of Bill C-150, the omnibus bill that decriminalized abortion, contraception and homosexuality. The rights that Canadians have because of this historic bill are crucial to remember as those same rights come under attack elsewhere: on Wednesday, Indiana became the first state in the U.S. to cut public funding to Planned Parenthood. The same day in Uganda, gay people came close to facing the death penalty.

On May 14, 1969, The Criminal Law Amendment Act formed the legal foundations for the Canadian gay rights movement, and for Henry Morgentaler to perform abortions against — and eventually according to — the law. But it didn’t reduce discrimination, or grant women and members of the LGBTQ community full rights under the charter. Forty-two years later, how much has changed?

Abortion and contraception then:

In the 1950s, a family of five was considered small, explained former nurse Lucie Pepin in her speech commemorating the 30th anniversary of Bill C-150. Many women in rural communities gave birth to their children at home. When complications occurred during birth, the mother was rushed to hospital. If it was too late for a cesarian, her doctor had a decision to make:

“Which to save — the baby or the mother? The Church was clear: save the baby. The Church was clear on many points — women sinned if they refused sexual relations with their husbands or any other form of contraception. The State was also clear. Contraception was illegal and so was abortion.”

Women had no choice in the matter, and neither did their doctors. But Bill C-150 at least changed the latter. The legislation decreed abortion was permissible if a committee of three doctors felt the pregnancy endangered the mental, emotional or physical well-being of the mother. Regard was not given just yet to women’s charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person.

Enter Henry Morgentaler. In 1969, armed with decisive arguments in favour of a woman’s right to an abortion within the first three months of pregnancy, the doctor began performing the procedure illegally in his Montreal clinic. An exchange in 1970 between the adamant doctor and a furious caller on CBC Radio highlighted the fundamental disagreement between the doctor and his critics about when life begins.

Now:

The debate hasn’t progressed. It has degenerated into little more than a shouting match between so-called “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates who still can’t agree on when life begins, or whose rights win out: those of the mother or those of the unborn fetus. And recently the Canadian debate has shifted for the worse.

In Indiana, the governor was quite happy to openly chop away at Planned Parenthood’s $2 million in public funding. Meanwhile, in Canada, subtler shifts are taking place. During the election, Tory MP Brad Trost bragged that the Conservative government had successfully cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Stephen Harper quickly denied the comments, saying he would not re-open the abortion debate as long as he is Prime Minister. However, the International Planned Parenthood Federation has been waiting for 18 months to hear whether their funding from the Canadian government will be renewed. During the election, women’s rights groups foreshadowed the Conservatives’ indecision on the matter warning Canadians that Harper would be under pressure from his caucus to re-open the debate. With a Conservative majority now in government, that pressure is sure to grow.

Homosexuality then:

149 Members of Parliament agreed with Trudeau and 55 did not after he famously said “there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” According to his omnibus bill, acts of homosexual sex committed in private between consenting adults would no longer be prosecuted. But gay sex between people younger than 21 was still illegal.

A Gallup Poll at the time that asked Canadians whether they thought homosexual sex should be legal or illegal found 42 percent in favour of decriminalization and 41 percent against. Homosexuality was openly discussed as an “illness” that ought to be cured. Progressive Conservative Justice Critic Eldon Woolliams voted in favour of Trudeau’s bill so that gays could have the equal opportunity to receive treatment. On February 2, 1969, he said casually on CBC television:

“I don’t think (homosexuality) should ever be put in the criminal code. I think it should be taken out. It should be done in a medical way so that these people could be sent to centres if we feel as citizens who oppose the feeling of this illness and this homosexuality so they could be rehabilitated.”

Woolliams appeared to sincerely (and incorrectly) believe that gay sex was a mere tendency based on environmental factors, and that the “pressure” of these factors could be “relieved.”

Before Bill C-150 was passed, “incurable” homosexual George Klippert was convicted of “gross indecency.” He was sentenced to preventative detention. In 1967, the Supreme Court upheld the decision.

Now:

Today the Ugandaan Parliament debated a bill that aimed to punish “aggravated homosexuality” by increasing jail sentences from 14 years to life. Until yesterday, the bill also proposed the death penalty for gays. The main motivation behind the legislation was preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS.

We would like to think that Canada is 40 years ahead of Uganda, but we still impose discriminatory policies to prevent the spread of what used to be known as “the gay cancer” — HIV/AIDS.

The policy of the Canadian Blood Services is to ban any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from giving blood for the rest of his life. The organization asserts that it is arms-length enough from the government to uphold the ban without fear of violating Charter rights. The CBS also discriminates based on action rather than sexuality — a gay man who hasn’t had sex is welcome to give blood. A third argument holds the least strength: though HIV/AIDS testing has advanced over the years, the possibility of a false negative still exists.

However, the policy is inherently discriminatory because it assumes any man who has sex with another man carries a high possibility of illness despite other factors such as relationship status, use of condoms, and differing risk factors based on oral versus anal sex. The CBS, which is regulated by Health Canada, maintains its policy based on outdated science. To their credit, the organization has offered a grant of $500,000 to any researcher(s) who can find a safe way to allow “MSM” men to safely give blood. No researchers have applied for the grant.

The lifetime ban is outdated, as is the recommended deferral period of 10 years, which the U.K. recently implemented. Australia, Sweden and Japan currently have deferral periods of one year. Researchers for the Canadian Medical Association Journal have recommended a one-year deferral policy for MSM donors in stable, monogamous relationships.

We’ve progressed, but we’re not perfect. And there’s a real risk of losing what we have. On May 14, let’s be grateful to the activists that pushed the LGBTQ and women’s rights movements forward.

Queer rights are on trial left, right and centre this month.

Here in Canada, an HIV-positive gay couple from the States has won their appeal against Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Until now, the majority of HIV-positive applicants have been excluded because of the excessive burden they posed on health services. This couple was initially rejected, but appealed on the basis that they could afford to cover their own health costs. CIC might still choose to appeal themselves, but the case is still encouraging for future HIV-positive immigrants to Canada — providing they have some cash behind them. Xtra has more here.

Meanwhile at the Ontario Superior Court, an HIV-positive man named Kyle Freeman is challenging the ban on blood donation by gay men. The trial moved to closing comments last week, and a decision is expected in a few weeks. Freeman’s lawyer Patricia LeFebour said in her closing remarks, “The current rule unfairly singles out the entire gay population,” and “doesn’t take into account the reality of today’s HIV statistics of gay men.”

Across the border, an interesting legal challenge has begun against the ban on same-sex marriage in California. Perry v. Schwarzenegger opened on Monday, and there is some speculation that this case may progress all the way to the US Supreme Court. Queer rights groups are divided over whether this would be good news. Some claim public opinion in the US is still deeply divided over gay marriage and for the Supreme Court to rule in its favour would trigger a major backlash. Others think a favourable ruling from the Supreme Court is unlikely, and that an unfavourable one could set the cause back a decade or more. The New Yorker has an interesting piece on the case, and you can also track the progress of the trial at this new Courage Campaign blog.

In Uganda, it is still unclear whether a bill imposing life sentences and even execution for homosexuality will pass into law. President Museveni has intervened, saying that the death penalty is a bridge too far, but the harsh prison sentences may still remain part of the bill. In the meantime though, debate over the bill is stirring up some seriously ugly anti-gay sentiment in the country.

Cate Simpson is a freelance journalist and the web and reviews editor for Shameless magazine. She lives in Toronto.

In a case before the Ontario Superior Court this month, an Ottawa man is challenging the ban on blood donation by gay men. Currently, any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 is “indefinitely deferred” from giving blood. Not only is this ban unnecessarily broad, it does a disservice to the very people it is supposed to protect.

The reasoning behind the ban is that gay men in Canada account for 60 percent of HIV-positive people, and for nearly half of new infections. All blood collected by Canadian Blood Services is screened for HIV, but the justification for the indefinite deferral of gay men is that the virus is not immediately detectable after infection—it can be several weeks before it shows up on a blood test. Clearly, these are compelling arguments for caution.

Toronto sexual health clinics deal with the issue of detection by waiting three months after a risky sexual encounter to confirm a negative result. Blood agencies in some countries subject gay men and other high-risk groups to a six- or twelve-month deferral period after last sexual contact to make sure the results of screenings are accurate. So why have CBS and Health Canada refused to rethink the total ban?

Another option would be to amend the ban to focus more narrowly on behaviour.

HIV infection rates are higher among gay men, but you are not inherently more likely to wind up with HIV just as a consequence of being gay. You have to have actually engaged in unprotected sex with an infected partner. So why not accept blood from gay men who have not been sexually active for the last six months? Or who have not had unprotected sex? Or who have not had anal sex?

Perhaps CBS simply does not trust gay men to be honest about their activities, in which case we may as well ask why CBS thinks they can be trusted to honestly self-identify at all.

Kyle Freeman, the Ottawa man who launched the current challenge against CBS, claims that asking donors their sexual orientation on their questionnaire is a violation of their Charter rights. In a way though, this isn’t really a fight about queer rights.

An argument could—and has—been made that the policy unfairly portrays gay men in Canada as the harbingers of disease. Or that it spreads misinformation about HIV by implying that it is transmissible by any sexual contact including oral sex, whether you wear a condom or not. But it seems to me that the more pressing issue is about access to blood. CBS has a responsibility to people in need of blood transfusions to provide blood that is safe. But they also have a responsibility to, well, provide blood. Is eliminating every gay man in the country who’s had sex in the last 30 years from the donor pool, when we have the means to make sure that blood is safe, really in the best interests of patients?

Cate Simpson is a freelance journalist and the web editor for Shameless magazine. She lives in Toronto.