Turn on thread page Beta

    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    It does affect black people in the UK when they come over here and mix with us. Okay so why not have an acceptance group on location instead of sexuality?
    Guess what, there are lots of black people in Britain who were born here, who come from here, and haven't even ever been to Africa!

    your comments about them "coming over here and mixing with us" sounds at best uninformed.

    Acceptance is based on a number of factors, not just eithr location or sexuality. For example, having worked as a prostitute or having been an injected-drugs user rules you out - these have nothing to do with sexuality.

    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Well go and find some statistics which show that homosexual men are worth excluding when blood is so short of supply. Preferbly not from blood.co.uk

    Most people who have AIDs in the world aren't British white homosexual men.
    Blood isn't short enough in supply to make it OK to accept blood from "at risk" groups.

    What do you have against the NBS website?

    Yes, I know most people with AIDS in the world aren't British white homosexual men. But the majority of people with HIV in the world won't be donating blood in Britain, will they ...!? So it's important to look at the people who are most "at risk" of HIV etc IN THE UK, not elsewhere in the world.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crana)
    Guess what, there are lots of black people in Britain who were born here, who come from here, and haven't even ever been to Africa!
    Never(!)

    (Original post by crana)
    Acceptance is based on a number of factors, not just eithr location or sexuality. For example, having worked as a prostitute or having been an injected-drugs user rules you out - these have nothing to do with sexuality.
    Yes as it is stated before. But there's such a shortage of blood and I was given the impression that certain STIs are actually lowering in this country. So it could be until 50 years before homosexuals are finally accepted.

    BTW you are easily wound up, not come across Howard before? :rolleyes:

    I will look forward to other people's views later on at a sensible time This should be in the D&D section really.

    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Never(!)

    Well, you did say "It does affect black people in the UK when they come over here and mix with us."

    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Yes as it is stated before. But there's such a shortage of blood and I was given the impression that certain STIs are actually lowering in this country. So it could be until 50 years before homosexuals are finally accepted.
    There's a blood shortage, but it's not THAT bad that we should accept blood from people at risk of very serious STIs. Yes I agree it's overly a "blanket measure" to exclude all men-who-have-sex-with-men from giving blood, along with all the other groups who are excluded, but until we have a more effective antigen-based blood test, I can't see it changing. It just isn't worth the risk.

    Which STIs do you think are lowering... ? And what is the 50 years thing about?

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there is no problem with "homosexuals" being accepted. Gay women: ok. Non-practising gay men: ok.

    Only men who have sex with men - and many of these aren't even gay! - look at rent boys, men in prison etc. Being a man who has sex with men doesn't actually make you a "homosexual", nor does being a "homosexual" mean you have sex with men!


    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    BTW you are easily wound up, not come across Howard before? :rolleyes:

    I will look forward to other people's views later on at a sensible time This should be in the D&D section really.
    I just think some of what you are saying is............... odd.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crana)
    There's a blood shortage, but it's not THAT bad that we should accept blood from people at risk of very serious STIs.
    Do you know how much is this shortage? j/w I suppose it's on the blood.co.uk site anyway.

    (Original post by crana)
    Yes I agree it's overly a "blanket measure" to exclude all men-who-have-sex-with-men from giving blood, along with all the other groups who are excluded, but until we have a more effective antigen-based blood test, I can't see it changing. It just isn't worth the risk.
    This is what I was trying to look at. Surely you knew that?

    (Original post by crana)
    Which STIs do you think are lowering... ? And what is the 50 years thing about?
    I heard from somewhere that certain STIs have lowered in recent years across all groups of society, though I'm unaware if it is AIDs/HIV.

    (Original post by crana)
    Only men who have sex with men - and many of these aren't even gay! - look at rent boys, men in prison etc. Being a man who has sex with men doesn't actually make you a "homosexual", nor does being a "homosexual" mean you have sex with men!
    Yes I understand that.

    (Original post by crana)
    I just think some of what you are saying is............... odd.
    I know, not usually like this.

    What I wouldn't mind knowing is what steps, if ever, will homosexual men be considered for blood donations? Hopefully with advanced in medicine this should be possible. I just don't like to hear a healthy homosexual man who is clean being refused to help when, in fact, had his blood been accepted he could have saved a life that otherwise would not have been lost. Surely you see this?

    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Do you know how much is this shortage? j/w I suppose it's on the blood.co.uk site anyway.



    This is what I was trying to look at. Surely you knew that?



    I heard from somewhere that certain STIs have lowered in recent years across all groups of society, though I'm unaware if it is AIDs/HIV.



    Yes I understand that.



    I know, not usually like this.

    What I wouldn't mind knowing is what steps, if ever, will homosexual men be considered for blood donations? Hopefully with advanced in medicine this should be possible. I just don't like to hear a healthy homosexual man who is clean being refused to help when, in fact, had his blood been accepted he could have saved a life that otherwise would not have been lost. Surely you see this?
    I think the shortage changes from day to day - for example bank holidays are meant to be bad times. I think things like syphilis are lower than they were, say, before antibiotics, but are meant to be making a "come back".. I dont know about the others.

    I think the first step will be a decent antigen blood test so that there's a much lower risk of false negative tests during the latent (is that right? forget the word) period following infection.

    I agree that I think it would be a big step forward if more people were able to give blood, including clean gay men (who have sex with men!) I do see this and I agree, I'm not trying to dispute this! I think it would be a good thing not only for blood stocks but also to reduce the stigma of being gay.. and similar things.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crana)
    I think the shortage changes from day to day - for example bank holidays are meant to be bad times.
    I wasn't aware of bank holidays, though I thought there would be seasonal changes more than anything.

    (Original post by crana)
    I think things like syphilis are lower than they were, say, before antibiotics, but are meant to be making a "come back".. I dont know about the others.
    Yes they are fighting back. Though I thought chlamydia was a decreasing STI.

    (Original post by crana)
    I think the first step will be a decent antigen blood test so that there's a much lower risk of false negative tests during the latent (is that right? forget the word) period following infection.
    I believe it is latent.

    (Original post by crana)
    I agree that I think it would be a big step forward if more people were able to give blood, including clean gay men (who have sex with men!) I do see this and I agree, I'm not trying to dispute this!
    I think I may have misinterpreted you earlier, sorry about that. I should be in bed.

    (Original post by crana)
    I think it would be a good thing not only for blood stocks but also to reduce the stigma of being gay.. and similar things.
    Yes. Perhaps we could try and use education to receive more donations. I suppose you could say make it compulsory but that might be a bad idea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    from a friend whom I was discussing it with

    Είστε τελειότητα. Σας χρειάζομαι. (2) says:
    So require people to have a test three months in advance and then ask if they've had sexual relations since testing. Yes, people could lie about that, but they could also lie about whether they were gay or not.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Also it would be nice to hear the rules regarding to blood donations elsewhere in Europe just for comparative issues.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .NK)
    I agree - someone in the UK contracted CJD from donated blood
    What if your O but the rest of your family including your partner is A,B or AB?

    Would you still want their blood alone then?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    the reason homosexual men are not allowed to give blood, is that they are likely to have had anal sex, or had sexual contact with someone who has. there is a significanty higher risk of transmissing of HIV through anal sex than there is with vaginal sex. this rule also applies to sraight couples who have had anal sex or slept with someone who has.

    Originally Posted by crana
    I agree that I think it would be a big step forward if more people were able to give blood, including clean gay men (who have sex with men!) I do see this and I agree, I'm not trying to dispute this! I think it would be a good thing not only for blood stocks but also to reduce the stigma of being gay.. and similar things.

    if anyone thinks im being mean, im not. those are the rules, and i think the vulnerable people receiving blood in tranfusions must be put first, no matter how much people who have anal sex wish to give blood gay/straight. there are valid medical reasons for this rule being in place - to protect the already very sick people who need blood transfusions.

    i think it would be very foolish to remove this rule. we may be low on blood stocks, but im afraid HIV infected blood, or where there is a risk of it (blood taken from people who've had anal sex), is unusable anway. its a perfectly sensible rule, and im afraid removing the Stigma Of Being Gay and gay rights must take a back seat in this issue. that is the most stupid and dangerous thing ive ever heard anyone say with regards to blood donation. the needs of the patient must come first.

    this is from www.blood.co.uk the website of the blood donation service.

    The special problem of HIV and Hepatitis viruses

    • Every single blood donation is tested for HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) and hepatitis B and C.

    • Infected blood isn't used in transfusions but our test may not always detect the early stages of viral infection.

    • The chance of infected blood getting past our screening tests is very small, but we rely on your help and co-operation.

    • People who carry these viruses may feel healthy for many years.

    You should never give blood if:

    1 You carry the hepatitis B virus, the hepatitis C virus or the HIV virus.
    2 You're a man who's had sex with another man, even "safe sex" using a condom.
    3 You've ever worked as a prostitute.
    4 You've ever injected yourself with drugs - even once.

    for the record, im not against gay people, i just feel that this is a sensible rule. and as i have previously mentioned, this rule can apply to straight people as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    So what are the chances between homosexual men and homosexual women compared to heterosexual women and heterosexual men? Is it that much different?

    Also what about ethnicity? I'd like to see the chances of various STIs looking at ethnicities too. I'm sure an African heterosexual woman who has come over here can easily escape the banning clause.
    No you can't give blood if you have been to Africa recently (and certain other areas)

    The questions they ask are about whether you have had anal sex, or sex with a man who has had oral/anal sex with another man.

    It's not anti gay or anti men, it is because it is much easier to spread infection (including HIV ) by anal sex.

    Although the incidence of new cases of HIV are low in the homosexual commuity people who developed HIV years ago are still alive.

    I agree that excluding a homosexual man from giving blood stinks. I do however accept that for this blood to have no risk of HIV or other infection the man giving blood MUST be one of the following

    a) a virgin (who has not contracted HIV)

    b) in a commited relationship with another man, both of whom were virgin's when they met, neither of them have had sex with another man or woman since the relationship began.

    c) in a commited relationship with another man for about 30 years, neither of them have had sex with another man or woman since the relationship began.

    you might think it's impossible for a virgin to have HIV, but there are people in their 20's who contracted HIV at birth or as children.

    Other people not allowed to donate

    Pregnant women.
    IV drug users.
    people with certain medical conditions, including hay rever!

    (Original post by ant87)
    the reason homosexual men are not allowed to give blood, is that they are likely to have had anal sex, or had sexual contact with someone who has. there is a significanty higher risk of transmissing of HIV through anal sex than there is with vaginal sex. this rule also applies to sraight couples who have had anal sex or slept with someone who has.

    Originally Posted by crana
    I agree that I think it would be a big step forward if more people were able to give blood, including clean gay men (who have sex with men!) I do see this and I agree, I'm not trying to dispute this! I think it would be a good thing not only for blood stocks but also to reduce the stigma of being gay.. and similar things.

    if anyone thinks im being mean, im not. those are the rules, and i think the vulnerable people receiving blood in tranfusions must be put first, no matter how much people who have anal sex wish to give blood gay/straight. there are valid medical reasons for this rule being in place - to protect the already very sick people who need blood transfusions.

    i think it would be very foolish to remove this rule. we may be low on blood stocks, but im afraid HIV infected blood, or where there is a risk of it (blood taken from people who've had anal sex), is unusable anway. its a perfectly sensible rule, and im afraid removing the Stigma Of Being Gay and gay rights must take a back seat in this issue. that is the most stupid and dangerous thing ive ever heard anyone say with regards to blood donation. the needs of the patient must come first.

    this is from www.blood.co.uk the website of the blood donation service.

    The special problem of HIV and Hepatitis viruses

    • Every single blood donation is tested for HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) and hepatitis B and C.

    • Infected blood isn't used in transfusions but our test may not always detect the early stages of viral infection.

    • The chance of infected blood getting past our screening tests is very small, but we rely on your help and co-operation.

    • People who carry these viruses may feel healthy for many years.

    You should never give blood if:

    1 You carry the hepatitis B virus, the hepatitis C virus or the HIV virus.
    2 You're a man who's had sex with another man, even "safe sex" using a condom.
    3 You've ever worked as a prostitute.
    4 You've ever injected yourself with drugs - even once.

    for the record, im not against gay people, i just feel that this is a sensible rule. and as i have previously mentioned, this rule can apply to straight people as well.
    Did you actually read my post and my other ones on this thread? If you did, you'd know that while I was expressing a hope that IN THE FUTURE, when we have better tests, I think it would be good if more people currently excluded from giving blood could. I also said that AT PRESENT, it was not feasible to allow some people e.g. men who have sex with men to give blood because the risks were unacceptable.

    How you can say "that is the most stupid and dangerous thing ive ever heard anyone say with regards to blood donation" if you had actually read what I've been saying on this - I have no idea.

    Could you please explain?

    (Original post by fishpaste)
    from a friend whom I was discussing it with

    Είστε τελειότητα. Σας χρειάζομαι. (2) says:
    So require people to have a test three months in advance and then ask if they've had sexual relations since testing. Yes, people could lie about that, but they could also lie about whether they were gay or not.
    yes, I'd thought of that too...

    I think another problem is that even after the 3 months period false negatives are possible. Even after a person has seroconverted, there could be an abnormally low level of HIV-antibodies in their blood leading to false negatives.

    I don't know much about this though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    cos it's sacry!.........and cos you might have a disease........or ......can't think ogf anything else!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i cant give blood, due to tthe whole gay man thing, however, i reaaly dont know if i could if i was allowed... needles are the only thing that i have a real phobia of: i can start feeling really ill just thinking about them, and when they are actually in my arm you can imagine what i feel like etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    im not old enough! (yet)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    why is the sexualy active gay man clause around for giving blood (i know the AIDS/HIV thing), but if all blood is screened anyway, what is the problem ?? :confused:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Homosexual)
    why is the sexualy active gay man clause around for giving blood (i know the AIDS/HIV thing), but if all blood is screened anyway, what is the problem ?? :confused:
    Because we have inadequate testing facilities.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Mild anaemia runs in my family, and my brother is thalasemic.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.