Canada is finally lifting the almost 30-year lifetime ban on blood donation by gay men.  However, only men who have not had sex with another man within the past five years will be allowed to donate blood.  Canadian Blood Services hopes to have this new policy in place by mid-summer.  Although this is a marked improvement over the current ban which prohibits men who have had sex with another man even once since 1977 to ever donate blood, the change does not go far enough.  I hope that this is only a first step and that the ban will be further reduced to better balance the protection of those receiving the donated blood with respect for and inclusiveness of all people.  Canada can look to other jurisdictions that balance these
competing interests in a less extreme manner, and through the use of empirical evidence.  For example, Australia has a policy where blood donations are deferred for only twelve months.  A study shows that Australia did not see an increase in contaminated blood donations when it moved to this model.  However, as highlighted below, ideally the health of the donor should be determined based on a donor's behaviour and not on his sexual orientation.

This change may also reverberate to affect those who can be a sperm donor in Canada. Currently, the Semen Regulations under Canada's Food and Drug Act only allow specific men to donate sperm.  Restricted men include any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 (following from the ban on blood donation by gay males).  If a man who has had sex with another man even once since 1977 wants to donate sperm, special permission needs to be obtained unless the sperm is being used by the donor's sexual partner. The regulation points to an increased likelihood of such a donor being infected with HIV.

This policy is unnecessarily discriminatory.  It affects who can be a parent or a donor, and puts gay men at a disadvantage, regardless of the man's HIV status, whether he is in a monogamous relationship, and whether he even lives as a gay male or only engaged in sex with a man once back in 1980.  If the government's concern is the health of recipients of donor sperm, it should be looking for indications of the donor's health and behaviour, as opposed to his sexual orientation or gender.  For example, the current Semen Regulations (which I expect will fall by the wayside as soon as the federal government proclaims the new section 10 of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act and the regulations thereto to be in force), require that any donor sperm provided for the use of someone who is not the sexual partner of the donor be quarantined for six months in order to protect against HIV and other transmittable diseases.  If all donor sperm needs to be quarantined and tested anyways, why is that insufficient for gay males but sufficient for heterosexual males? Regardless, I'm hopeful that the change made to the restrictions on gay males donating blood will signify at least a similar change to the restrictions on gay males donating sperm (and that both policies will continue moving in the appropriate direction). 

NB: I admit that I do not have scientific training so if I am missing something here, feel free to school me.   As the policy stands, it seems to me like discrimination without the science or logic to back it up.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia released a landmark fertility law decision where, for the first time, sperm was held to constitute property at law.  You can find the J.C.M. v. A.N.A. decision here.

Briefly, here are the facts of the case:

A lesbian couple purchased sperm from a US sperm bank.  Using this sperm, they conceived two children at Genesis Fertility Centre.  The couple later broke up and divided up the assets of their relationship, but inadvertently failed to come to an agreement about the remaining sperm.  The applicant, J.C.M., later met a new partner and wanted to use the remaining frozen sperm to conceive a child who was biologically related to her previous children.  A.N.A. refused to allow the use and instead asked that the cryopreserved sperm be destroyed.  J.C.M. brought the application seeking a declaration that the sperm was her sole property.

The Honourable Madame Justice Russell ordered that the 13 remaining sperm straws be divided between the parties.

Here is what I had to say about the decision: watch the brief video here

Take home point: while an important decision, I doubt that the issue of whether gametes are property at law is resolved by this decision.  How would the judge have decided had the remaining donor gamete been a single cryopreserved egg that could not be divided? Would the decision have differed had the donor sperm not been purchased by the parties, thereby taking away any meaningful argument from the respondent that treating human gametes as property devalues and commercializes human tissue?