Ban on gay men donating blood to be lifted

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100

Fission_Mailed

The only thing this debate proves is that people are absolutely crap at epidemiology.

Reply 101

winter_mute

Original post by Fission_Mailed

The only thing this debate proves is that people are absolutely crap at epidemiology.

Where's Ben Goldacre when you need him?

but i dont want AIDS

Original post by winter_mute

Where's Ben Goldacre when you need him?

I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing ended up in a column.

Reply 104

Tommyjw

Original post by anti-duck

Seems a bit strange to me. Are people that have been on holiday to parts of Africa or the West Indies banned from giving blood for the next 10 years too. What about men with a mail order bride from Thailand?

Well no.. i've visited Africa with my family.. doesnt mean we all went around sleeping with everything and putting needles in ourselves every night.

Reply 105

callum9999

I really don't get why people think decisions like this are homophobic. Misguided maybe, but homophobic would be ridiculous. As the person giving blood is gaining absolutely nothing, and the only benefactors from the blood giving process are patients - where sexuality plays no role whatsoever on deciding what treatment they are allowed, I can see no logic behind a homophobic person making these rules.

Reply 106

anti-duck

Original post by Tommyjw

Well no.. i've visited Africa with my family.. doesnt mean we all went around sleeping with everything and putting needles in ourselves every night.

Ok, let me re-word my last post -

:s-smilie:

Seems a bit strange to me. Are people that have been on a lads holiday to Swaziland or Puerto Rico banned from giving blood for the next 10 years too? What about men with a mail order bride from Thailand?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 107

Steevee

Original post by crazycake93

Yeah but I doubt you'd be happy if you had a blood transfusion, only to find out that you now have HIV, because a homosexual man donated his blood.

I wouldn't be happy if I got HIV from any blood transfusion.

But the increased likelyhood of HIV from a gay man is only small.

Reply 108

Tommyjw

Original post by Steevee

I wouldn't be happy if I got HIV from any blood transfusion.

But the increased likelyhood of HIV from a gay man is only small.

If gay men were allowed to give blood with no rules whatsoever it would increase the risk five fold.

Which i'm sure anyone would agree is a fairly legitimate reason to put some kind of regulation in place.

Reply 109

Steevee

Original post by Tommyjw

Hmm, perhaps they should have to provide a certificate, from the last year stating they are HIV free? Seems fair to me.

But a point to note really. I don't think the promiscious, STD carrying types are normally the ones who try to give blood all that often.

Reply 110

Tommyjw

Original post by Steevee

There is a period to which an infection cannot be spotted by tests, i think it is when they first have it, although i cannot remember exactly. There are probably other reasons too.

Reply 111

Steevee

Original post by Tommyjw

There is a period to which an infection cannot be spotted by tests, i think it is when they first have it, although i cannot remember exactly. There are probably other reasons too.

Well, looking at the statistics on the amount of people with HIV in Britain, then extrapolating that to the amount that are homosexual, don't know they have an infection and wish to give blood within a year of contracting the virus, I think it's a risk I'm willing to take.

Reply 112

Helenia

Original post by anti-duck

Ok, let me re-word my last post -

:s-smilie:

Sex with someone from sub-Saharan Africa, or with a prostitute from any country, bars you for 1 year afterwards.

I'm not sure why they have decided on a 10 year limit for gay men, but I'm pretty sure it's because they looked at the statistics and calculated the risk rather than just deciding an arbitrary figure.

Reply 113

Hantheman

Good. If we can't trust a human to say if they've had unprotected sex or not, it's a sad day for humankind.

Reply 114

MrsCrackFox

Why do they say that homosexuals are more likely to have HIV?
I somehow doubt that...can anyone explain that claim?

Reply 115

tieyourmotherdown

Original post by MrsCrackFox

Why do they say that homosexuals are more likely to have HIV?
I somehow doubt that...can anyone explain that claim?

Gay men are statistically more likely to have HIV. This isn't really the case with younger gay people so much, but with older gay people the figures are scarily high because they grew up in an era when being gay was illegal and very little was known about safe sex.

Reply 116

username457532

Original post by Helenia

But IF one year is long enough to wait after sex with a prostitute or someone from sub-Saharan Africa and there is no limit on how long after someone has unprotected sex with someone of the opposite sex who they don't suspect to have HIV (but could still have the virus). Then why does it have to be ten years after sex between two men? Regardless of whether a condom was used or not and regardless of number of previous sexual partners...

That's not for the safety of the patients. It's clearly homophobia (and for those that don't see it - it implies that most gay men have HIV, are promiscuous and don't use a condom while straight people don't have HIV, are exclusive and always use a condom).

Reply 117

trm90

As many of you may not know, bareback (condom-less) sex is becoming increasingly popular in the gay scene and is the most popular pornography out there. And now that HIV is much more treatable than it used to be, a lot of gay men don't care about the consequences. This leads to a lot of unsafe sex between people with high sex drives and, unsurprisingly, a higher proportion of gay men getting and transmitting HIV to others.

So now what do we have? Guys trading in their own health and safety, their own life expectancy and all for what? Slightly more enjoyable sex :rolleyes:

? It's absolutely ****ing pathetic. These irresponsible idiots are responsible for the rest of us safe gay men who are obviously more than eligible to donate blood but can't, and I can't help but think that it's really no wonder we're not allowed to donate blood. And with regards to this new change, it's not even a small step forward in the right direction. The only way we're going to get health services to regain trust in gay men is by trying to prevent unsafe sex in gay communities and statistically proving that we're not so bad anymore.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 118

nexttime

Original post by SmallTownGirl

The facts have been studied - being gay is a much bigger risk factor for HIV than having heterosexual sex, and marginally bigger than having sex with a prostitute or someone from sub-saharan Africa. Someone is deemed to be 'safe' once their risk drops below a certain threshold - this takes a longer time for the more-at-risk homosexual group than any other group.

This is not a question of anyone's opinions or morals - they base this on cold hard data. There is simply no debate here.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 119

User570431

Original post by lekky

I think the screening point is mainly that HIV cannot be screened for if it has recently been caught.

And homosexual men are just at a greater risk for HIV than most other groups of individuals - hence the ban.