A Porkellis woman living with HIV has hit out after saying she was refused a tattoo by a Helston studio.

Veritee Reed-Hall’s allegations have been strongly denied by the owners of Hell’s Gate, who have insisted the decision was actually to protect her.

Mrs Reed-Hall said she had wanted her first tattoo, at the age of 59, to feature an entwined red and pink ribbon – red for HIV awareness and pink for breast cancer, to which she has lost friends and family members in the past.

She said she felt angry and “humiliated” at being refused by Hell’s Gate. Mrs Reed-Hall, who contracted HIV from her husband after he became infected while in Brazil, said: “It really makes my blood boil. I know the reason is they’re worried about their other customers. People are so ignorant.

“I think it’s total discrimination and I’m so angry. My real anger is anybody who thinks I would risk someone else – what do they think of people with HIV? “We don’t want anybody to get this. We’re living with the stigma and everything it entails.”

Mrs Reed-Hall said she had spoken in depth with her consultant, who assured her that provided disposal needles, lines and universal protection were used there would be no risk.

Studios in Falmouth and Penzance had already said they would carry out the procedure, but as it was to be her first tattoo she was nervous and would have preferred to be closer to home in case she had a bad reaction.

Jane Morse of Hell’s Gate told the Packet that far from being concerned about an infection being transferred – with their equipment single use and surgically sterilised – the reason for refusal was the shop had always had a policy not to tattoo anyone that could potentially have a lowered immune system. In addition to anyone with HIV, the list included cancer patients, women who were pregnant or breastfeeding, sufferers of epilepsy or diabetes and anyone with hepatitis or who had undergone a surgical procedure in the previous 12 months.

These conditions could potentially put them at greater risk of infection, with a tattoo effectively being an open wound.

“A tattoo could possibly be detrimental to them. We want our customers to go away with the best possible outcome,” said Mrs Morse. While Mrs Reed-Hall had told the shop she was not immunocompromised, Mrs Morse said she could not prove this.

“It was not because we felt we were at risk tattooing her. It’s because we want the best outcome for our customers,” she added. “It isn’t stigmatising somebody with HIV.”

Mrs Moore said her husband had built up the small family business from nothing and was upset by Mrs Reed-Hall’s claims, adding: “We want to try and do the best by people.”