GOI Defends its Policy of Not Allowing Blood Donation by Transgenders, Gay, Sex Workers

Scientific data clearly demonstrates that these groups have higher rates of HIV and other transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs), cited the govt.
GOI Defends its Policy of Not Allowing Blood Donation by Transgenders, Gay, Sex Workers
Published on

NEW DELHI: The Indian government has defended its policies prohibiting transgender people, female sex workers, and homosexual men from donating blood, claiming that scientific data clearly demonstrates that these groups have higher rates of HIV and other transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs).

The government argued before the Supreme Court (SC) that the primary goal of a secure blood transfusion system (BTS) is to protect the well-being and security of the person receiving the donated blood.

Every effort must be made to protect the recipient from an undesirable outcome, especially when the effects may be permanent. However, even when weighing a blood donor's individual rights against those of the recipient, the government told the top court that the recipient's right to get a safe blood transfusion outweighed a donor's right to provide blood by a wide margin.

It went on to say that, from the standpoint of public health, the integrity of the BTS is crucial, and constitutional courts should respect the advice of subject-matter experts.

The Supreme Court issued a notice in March 2021 regarding a petition filed by Thangjam Santa Singh alias Santa Khurai, a member of the transgender community, who argued that the exclusion of transgender people, gay men, and female sex workers from being blood donors and permanently prohibiting them from doing so solely on the basis of their gender identity and sexual orientation was unconstitutional. The government responded to the notice by filing an affidavit to this effect.

The appeal further claimed that such categorization was based on unfavourable stereotypes, which violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution by amounting to discrimination.

The government countered that the petitioner's concerns fall under the purview of the executive, supported by medical, scientific, and other technical experts who are guided by data as well as their own professional experience. As a result, the government claimed, the concerns raised should be assessed from a public health perspective rather than just an individual's rights.

The government's statement further said that those who are thought to be at risk for HIV and Hepatitis B or C infection fall under the category of people excluded under the guidelines.

Several population groupings have been particularly included in this category of people.

Also Watch: 

Top News

No stories found.
Sentinel Assam
www.sentinelassam.com