LGBTQ+ advocates have urged the Thai Red Cross’s National Blood Centre to revise its blood donation application form following an Administrative Court ruling which upheld the ban on LGBTQ+ blood donations as non-discriminatory for public safety.
Critics argue the Sept 19 decision overlooked key issues in the form, sparking calls for a more inclusive and evidence-based screening process.
Kittinun Daramadhaj, president of the Rainbow Sky Association of Thailand and member of the Committee on Consideration of Unfair Gender Discrimination, told the Bangkok Post the court misunderstood the distinction between screening under the blood donation application form and laboratory blood testing.
“I fully agree that ensuring pure and safe blood is essential — no one wants unsafe blood,” he said. “The complaint filed in 2019 by a transgender woman focused solely on the form, not the lab process,” he said.
The previous form required only male-assigned-at-birth donors to declare anal sex, perpetuating stereotypes about men who have sex with men (MSM) while overlooking similar risks among heterosexuals engaging in anal sex.
He said anyone can engage in such activity, and the form should allow everyone to respond equally.
The 2022 committee ruling deemed the form discriminatory under the Gender Equality Act, mandating revisions to ensure inclusivity and remove stigma.
Mr Kittinun said the committee will appeal the case to the Supreme Administrative Court and will focus specifically on the blood donation application form, leaving laboratory processes separate.
He said while the Red Cross has revised its forms multiple times to promote inclusivity, they still primarily target so-called high-risk groups. The current form asks donors to declare biological sex and gender with options of woman, man, transwoman and transman.
The form also asks about sexual behaviour including having sexual contact with the same biological sex or opposite biological sex. The form asks about partner’s risk characteristics, and HIV treatment or prevention history, including PrEP or PEP.
Those identified as high-risk may be refused, prompting some to falsify their responses. “Many sex workers or drug users lie on the form to avoid refusal or prosecution,” Mr Kittinun said.
Nittaya Phanuphak, executive director of Thailand’s Institute of HIV Research and Innovation, said such profiling is outdated and not evidence-based.
Using effective protection — like condoms, HIV prevention drugs (PrEP, PEP) or having an undetectable viral load — lowers HIV risk for everyone, regardless of gender or sexual activity. Laboratory methods such as Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing (NAT) detect pathogens, ensuring blood safety independently of donor profiles, she said.
She suggested the blood donor form be neutral on sexual practices, occupations and HIV prevention to avoid marginalising sex workers, PrEP users and those with HIV-positive partners whose viral load is undetectable and therefore untransmittable.
Including an “HIV protection methods” question would promote inclusivity and ensure Thailand’s blood supply remains safe and sufficient, she said.
Mr Kittinun agreed the blood donation form should focus on individual risk behaviours rather than identity, with detailed questions on sexual practices, drug use and HIV or sexually transmitted infection protection.
He said such specificity would encourage honesty and accountability among donors. He said the application form should serve as a screening tool, not to determine eligibility for blood donation.