禁止同志捐血正當性之研究

自民國95年3月15日衛生福利部（舊行政院衛生署）訂定捐血者健康標準後，除了同志權益保障議題受到廣泛討論，其中禁止同志捐血之爭議大多是社會大眾常將同志與愛滋劃上等號，更是讓同志團體與衛生署對立爭吵的情形日漸嚴重。衡諸於此，本文之研究問題，在於我國捐血中禁止同志捐血所遭受的困境及相關問題，討論此項禁止是否必要？研究之架構，第一章為緒論，指出本論文之研究動機、我國捐血事業現況、相關名詞解釋。第二章文獻回顧。第三章提出捐血者健康標準所規定的問題是否有規定之必要、探討捐血者之身分與行為，不應混為一談。第四章則以法律學之角度，指出禁止同志捐血之規定違反人民憲法上基本權，並於第五章參考外國法律之規定與比較。最後，第六章總結本文見解與衝突解決途徑依本文研究之結果，捐血問卷表單及捐血者健康標準第5條無需特別規定，應採取與異性相同之規定。首先，捐血者是否誠實填寫捐血問卷表單，工作員無法得知亦無法由外表判斷捐血者是否有發生男性間性行為。第二，不應區分異性間性行為與男性間性行為，不管異性或同性皆有感染之虞，而非以身分作為認定。第三，同性間或異性間性行為，應區分是否為安全性行為作為捐血標準之一較為妥適。

關鍵字

捐血；平等權；愛滋病毒；人格權；人性尊嚴；個人資料保護法

並列摘要

Since 15th of March, 2006, the Ministry of Health and Welfare (formerly known as Department of Health, Executive Yuan) has been setting the health standards for blood donors. In addition to extensive discussions regarding the protection of gay rights, the controversy of the prohibition against gay blood donation is mostly due to the fact that the general public always put the homosexual as the one infected by AIDS, causing more serious quarrels between LGBT groups and the Department of Health. For this reason, this study is going to discover the difficulties and relevant problems when it comes to the prohibition against gay blood donation stipulated by the national laws, and to discuss if it is necessary to make laws of prohibition? The structure of the study: Chapter 1 is introduction, pointing out the motivations of this study, the current situation of blood donation industry in Taiwan, and the explanation of relative terms. Chapter 2 is literature review. Chapter 3 discusses whether there is a need for setting up the health standards for blood donors, and to discuss if the identity and behaviours of the donors shall not be relating to each other. Chapter 4 will discuss the issue from the perspective of law, pointing out that the prohibition against gay blood donation violates the fundamental rights of people provided in the Constitution. In Chapter 5, the regulations and comparisons of laws in other countries are discussed. Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the insights and conflicts resolution approaches in this study. According to the results of this study, the blood donation questionnaire forms and the Article 5 of Blood Donor Health Standards do not specify special regulations. Therefore, the homosexual should be applied the same regulations as those of the heterosexual. First of all, it is hard to know if the donors fill up the donation questionnaires in an honest way. And the personnel cannot judge from the appearance of donors to be sure that they had sex with the other males. Secondly, we should not differentiate sexual behaviours of heterosexual and homosexual. Regardless of the opposite sex or the same sex, there is always a risk of infection of AIDS, and cannot be judged from their identity. The last but not the least, it is more appropriate to set up blood donation standards by distinguishing if people are having safe-sex behaviours instead of judging from sexual behaviours between heterosexuals or those of homosexuals.