Ban on gay men donating blood to be lifted
Currently homosexual men who have ever had gay sex are unable to donate blood. The reason for this is that they are at a greater risk than other groups of having HIV, although more than 50% of people with HIV are heterosexuals, normally of African origin.
Despite this 7% of sexually active homosexual men regularly donate blood.
New proposals are for homosexual men who have not had sex for more than 10 years can now donate blood. This is believed to increase the risk of HIV in the blood supply by less than 5%. The reason for the 10 year gap is apparently related to the delayed time for HIV to show up in a blood test.
Relevant articles:
Pink news
The Times
Interesting article about why this is actually more homophobic from total politics
Thoughts?
My thoughts (a bit jumped, I feel a bit conflicted on this).
Although <5% seems quite high, if it's <5% then the overall increase is pretty slim. With falling levels of blood stock, and more needed, the increased risk is probably justified in the increased amount of blood that will be generated.
This in no way will stop the 7% of sexually active homosexual men that currently donate blood from donating blood. It's quite clear that if someone wants to donate blood, then they can, and maybe it might be worth considering regular screening programmes of HIV or insisting on recent HIV check documentation rather than a blanket ban? Make it people who have not had unprotected gay sex in the last 6 months, as within this time HIV would be possible to be screened? It is also possibly easier to say "I have not had gay sex for 10 years" than "I have never had gay sex".
Despite this 7% of sexually active homosexual men regularly donate blood.
New proposals are for homosexual men who have not had sex for more than 10 years can now donate blood. This is believed to increase the risk of HIV in the blood supply by less than 5%. The reason for the 10 year gap is apparently related to the delayed time for HIV to show up in a blood test.
Relevant articles:
Pink news
Spoiler
The Times
Spoiler
Interesting article about why this is actually more homophobic from total politics
Spoiler
Thoughts?
My thoughts (a bit jumped, I feel a bit conflicted on this).
Although <5% seems quite high, if it's <5% then the overall increase is pretty slim. With falling levels of blood stock, and more needed, the increased risk is probably justified in the increased amount of blood that will be generated.
This in no way will stop the 7% of sexually active homosexual men that currently donate blood from donating blood. It's quite clear that if someone wants to donate blood, then they can, and maybe it might be worth considering regular screening programmes of HIV or insisting on recent HIV check documentation rather than a blanket ban? Make it people who have not had unprotected gay sex in the last 6 months, as within this time HIV would be possible to be screened? It is also possibly easier to say "I have not had gay sex for 10 years" than "I have never had gay sex".
(edited 13 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
I'd be for them donating blood, and have extra screening. Better this than people being forced to keep quiet. Heterosexuals can catch HIV too.
Meh. I think the ban itself is unfair. There is a small risk of such a disease, but this is far outweighed by the amount of good blood can give.
Perhaps if we had free, and regular HIV screening? I am under the impression it's a relativley cheap process, judging by the frequency with which it's carried out in impoverished Africa.
Perhaps if we had free, and regular HIV screening? I am under the impression it's a relativley cheap process, judging by the frequency with which it's carried out in impoverished Africa.
Original post by barnetlad
I'd be for them donating blood, and have extra screening. Better this than people being forced to keep quiet. Heterosexuals can catch HIV too.
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.
They test the blood twice, once when it is donated and once before it is given to the recipient. However, the test is 99.9% accurate so roughly 1 in 2000 samples will give a false reading after two tests. MSM (Men who have sex with men) are one of the high risk groups as well as Africans who have sex abroad in particular so maybe their blood should be tested more than twice?
Original post by lekky
Currently homosexual men who have ever had gay sex are unable to donate blood. The reason for this is that they are at a greater risk than other groups of having HIV, although more than 50% of people with HIV are heterosexuals, normally of African origin.
Despite this 7% of sexually active homosexual men regularly donate blood.
New proposals are for homosexual men who have not had sex for more than 10 years can now donate blood. This is believed to increase the risk of HIV in the blood supply by less than 5%. The reason for the 10 year gap is apparently related to the delayed time for HIV to show up in a blood test.
Relevant articles:
Pink news
The Times
Interesting article about why this is actually more homophobic from total politics
Thoughts?
My thoughts (a bit jumped, I feel a bit conflicted on this).
Although <5% seems quite high, if it's <5% then the overall increase is pretty slim. With falling levels of blood stock, and more needed, the increased risk is probably justified in the increased amount of blood that will be generated.
This in no way will stop the 7% of sexually active homosexual men that currently donate blood from donating blood. It's quite clear that if someone wants to donate blood, then they can, and maybe it might be worth considering regular screening programmes of HIV or insisting on recent HIV check documentation rather than a blanket ban? Make it people who have not had unprotected gay sex in the last 6 months, as within this time HIV would be possible to be screened? It is also possibly easier to say "I have not had gay sex for 10 years" than "I have never had gay sex".
Despite this 7% of sexually active homosexual men regularly donate blood.
New proposals are for homosexual men who have not had sex for more than 10 years can now donate blood. This is believed to increase the risk of HIV in the blood supply by less than 5%. The reason for the 10 year gap is apparently related to the delayed time for HIV to show up in a blood test.
Relevant articles:
Pink news
Spoiler
The Times
Spoiler
Interesting article about why this is actually more homophobic from total politics
Spoiler
Thoughts?
My thoughts (a bit jumped, I feel a bit conflicted on this).
Although <5% seems quite high, if it's <5% then the overall increase is pretty slim. With falling levels of blood stock, and more needed, the increased risk is probably justified in the increased amount of blood that will be generated.
This in no way will stop the 7% of sexually active homosexual men that currently donate blood from donating blood. It's quite clear that if someone wants to donate blood, then they can, and maybe it might be worth considering regular screening programmes of HIV or insisting on recent HIV check documentation rather than a blanket ban? Make it people who have not had unprotected gay sex in the last 6 months, as within this time HIV would be possible to be screened? It is also possibly easier to say "I have not had gay sex for 10 years" than "I have never had gay sex".
I think this is wrong
This is wrong, if someone is in a higher risk group, they shouldn't be allowed. It's not homophobic, it's logical.
Original post by CombineHarvester
They test the blood twice, once when it is donated and once before it is given to the recipient. However, the test is 99.9% accurate so roughly 1 in 2000 samples will give a false reading after two tests. MSM (Men who have sex with men) are one of the high risk groups as well as Africans who have sex abroad in particular so maybe their blood should be tested more than twice?
Again as I said above, the main problem is that HIV cannot be detected in the very early stages.
Original post by lekky
Original post by lekky
Again as I said above, the main problem is that HIV cannot be detected in the very early stages.
If over 50% of people with HIV aren't MSM then surely they should have this 'no sexual activity for x amount of time' requirement for everyone?
Am I missing something here? If the person donated blood which was then tested in labs to check it was clear of HIV etc. then it should be fine regardless of sexuality? Is this not the case? I honestly have no idea but I don't see why they shouldn't be able to give blood if they believe it's clean, and tests confirm this, just because they're gay.
Why are they banned? Isn't all blood donated screened and checked anyway ?
Original post by Steevee
Meh. I think the ban itself is unfair. There is a small risk of such a disease, but this is far outweighed by the amount of good blood can give.
Perhaps if we had free, and regular HIV screening? I am under the impression it's a relativley cheap process, judging by the frequency with which it's carried out in impoverished Africa.
Perhaps if we had free, and regular HIV screening? I am under the impression it's a relativley cheap process, judging by the frequency with which it's carried out in impoverished Africa.
we do have free HIV screening and you can have it as regularly as you go ask for it.
makes sense in to a point. but if you a woman and have sex with a man that has previously had gay sex you have to wait a certain amount of time, I think its a year, so why such a longer wait for the man. I think you also have to wait a year if you get a tattoo? so surely if HIV would show up in that length of time the extra long wait is pointless
If this is what the experts recommend, then it's a good decision. They know what they're talking about
I really don't think it's an issue of discrimination or not, because frankly with something as essential as blood donations, equality needs to be put aside temporarily. Ultimately if the experts recommended keeping the ban, I would support that as somebody who is gay simply because they know far more than anybody here does, likewise they have concluded that relaxing the ban somewhat is a good idea so I support that as well.
Basically what I'm saying is let's not change on the law according to whether it's discriminatory or not, but according to what's in everybody's best interests.
I really don't think it's an issue of discrimination or not, because frankly with something as essential as blood donations, equality needs to be put aside temporarily. Ultimately if the experts recommended keeping the ban, I would support that as somebody who is gay simply because they know far more than anybody here does, likewise they have concluded that relaxing the ban somewhat is a good idea so I support that as well.
Basically what I'm saying is let's not change on the law according to whether it's discriminatory or not, but according to what's in everybody's best interests.
Original post by .Ali.
I think this is wrong
This is wrong, if someone is in a higher risk group, they shouldn't be allowed. It's not homophobic, it's logical.
This is wrong, if someone is in a higher risk group, they shouldn't be allowed. It's not homophobic, it's logical.
The trouble is how do you define "higher risk group"? If we eliminate all the groups that have a slightly higher infection rate we've cut out the vast majority of the population, and we have to balance up the risk of HIV with the need for blood.
In this instance it seems the experts have said that relaxing the ban slightly is in everybody's interests, so why should we keep it? They know far more about this sort of stuff than we ever will.
This is so stupid.
I used to work for the NHSBT and they test all sample blood for HIV after allowing it to develop and then keep the blood pack with the corresponding bar code in storage until they get the test results back anyway.
I know there must be a tiny margin of error on infection testing but there really is no reason to panic about HIV rates increasing. It's a really bigoted policy as it is.
I used to work for the NHSBT and they test all sample blood for HIV after allowing it to develop and then keep the blood pack with the corresponding bar code in storage until they get the test results back anyway.
I know there must be a tiny margin of error on infection testing but there really is no reason to panic about HIV rates increasing. It's a really bigoted policy as it is.
I understand that there might be a risk. But why is there no 'you should not give blood if you have had unprotected sex with the last x months' on the website? It seems to suggest that if a man and a woman have unprotected sex it's ok to give blood right away but never (or now not until after 10 years) if it's two men whether or not they've used protection/had HIV screenings/neither of them have ever had sex with anyone else...
That's not to get rid of any 'risks'. That's homophobic.
That's not to get rid of any 'risks'. That's homophobic.
Original post by tieyourmotherdown
The trouble is how do you define "higher risk group"? If we eliminate all the groups that have a slightly higher infection rate we've cut out the vast majority of the population, and we have to balance up the risk of HIV with the need for blood.
In this instance it seems the experts have said that relaxing the ban slightly is in everybody's interests, so why should we keep it? They know far more about this sort of stuff than we ever will.
In this instance it seems the experts have said that relaxing the ban slightly is in everybody's interests, so why should we keep it? They know far more about this sort of stuff than we ever will.
Because I believe in minimising the risk whereever possible, and whilst determining high risk groups is difficult, it's clear that homosexual or bisexual men have a higher risk.
But then again, I'm very paranoid about hospital risks due to a hospital cock-up when I was little, so I'm possibly oversensitive to the issue.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- MEN- Why do you donate/ do not donate blood?
- Make it More Devil-ey !!
- Make it More Blood-ey !!
- Motorbike licence
- Muslim - Am i allowed to have physical contact with the in this circumstance
- I'm not gay but sometimes I get off to gay porn?
- Aussie police uninvited from Mardi Gras after double homicide
- why do i watch gay male porn even though im a lesbian women??????????????????
- Male boundaries and sexuality
- Unit 7 exam help - preparation
- Always feel like this after weights
- I watch lesbian porn but I’m straight
- Stuck for Cash - Gay for Pay
- A question for straight men
- What are your thoughts on rainbow washing?
- Do women want tall dark hired guys?
- can you put in your own earring straight after it has been pierced
- weight lifting making me tired
- Do you think universities should ban meat from their menus?
- Is this guy gay or what does this mean?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
