Should gay men be allowed to give blood?

[Pompey77]

NHS;

Currently the policy is to ask those in groups shown to have a particularly high risk of carrying blood-borne viruses not to give blood. This includes men who have ever had sex with men, with this exclusion resting on specific sexual behaviour (such as oral or anal sex between men) rather than sexuality. There is, therefore, no exclusion of gay men who have never had sex with a man, nor of women who have sex with women.

The criteria across all of the UK Blood Services for accepting blood donors are regularly reviewed by the Department of Health's Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO).
http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/exclusion/

Terrence Higgins Trust;

The priority of the National Blood Service must be to prevent blood containing HIV or other blood-borne viruses from being passed to patients who receive transfusions or blood products. THT has a proud history of campaigning for LGBT rights and against homophobia and will continue to do so, but we believe that this is a public health issue, rather than one of homophobic discrimination.
We accept that on the surface the current rules initially appear discriminatory and have worked with the National Blood Service to review and improve the quality of their communication with members of the public who are refused, to explain why this is so.http://www.tht.org.uk/informationres...looddonations/

Peter Tatchell;

...the policy of excluding every gay donor is based on crass generalisations. It lumps together all gay men, without differentiation, as if we are all the same. We're not. There is a wide diversity of gay sexual behaviours and lifestyles. Some of us are at risk of HIV, and some of us are not.
http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_ri...homophobic.htm

Johann Hari;

Earlier this year, a 21-year-old gay electronics technician called Michael Cain launched a court case against the Australian Red Cross after they refused to take his blood. He wants gay men who exclusively practice safe sex – like him – to be allowed to donate like everyone else. The scientists testifying at the trial included the doctor who first created the blood ban – who came to apologise. They explained that blood banks now have to choose between two competing risks. On one side is the high risk of people dying because they are given old, stale blood due to a lack of donors. On the other side is the infinitesimally small risk of people dying because they have been given blood by condom-wearing gay men.

The US epidemiologist and bio-ethicist Dr Scott Halpern crunched the figures for the court. Some 1 in 100 people who are infused with blood older than 14 days will die – and 13 per cent of infused blood offered by the Red Cross is older than that. This, he explained, poses a risk "thousands of times greater" than "the very worst predictions of HIV infection" if you let latex-loving gay men donate. Why? Because if the ban is lifted and gay men who practice safe sex are allowed to donate, a single HIV-positive blood donation will slip through clinical screening once every 5,769 years.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...od-959316.html

The UK is to end the ban on gay men donating blood. But read the not-so-small print, and that ringing sound becomes tinny, hollow. Only gay men who have not had sex in a decade will be able to give blood.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...onors-safe-sex

Is the risk so high that I, a young gay man, who has slept only with my partner for over five years and who knows for certain that we are both HIV negative should still not be able to give blood? I know straight people who haven't played it safe sexually in the past and have been allowed to give blood and as a result I feel this policy is unfairly discriminatory. Discuss.

[Erebus555]

I had no idea there was even a ban on gay men being able to donate blood. It really does surprise me although it doesn't surprise me if certain people refused blood from a gay man. Personally, if I needed it, I'd have no issue with accepting a blood donated from someone who was gay as long as I know it has been properly tested like any other donation.

[AndrewC]

If they think the risk is there then whatever. I'll be a bit miffed if I need blood and am denied because of low supplies. But you know, I'll live (or die).


But why no ban on dirty hetrosexuals who sleep around? Or would those questions be asked and those who admit to unprotected sex be politely asked to fuck off?

[CharlieP]

Isn't there also a ban on men who've slept with prostitutes?

[Awayo]

Originally Posted by CharlieP

Isn't there also a ban on men who've slept with prostitutes?

Do you have to pay extra for that?

[ferge]

A friend of mine who I lived with at Uni is gay and has written to his local MP for years about wanting to donate blood. He says that he is regularly tested at the doctors for HIV and STDs, he has been in a long term relationship and (as far as I was ever aware, not that I asked) practised safe sex.

Yet as said, I doubt such questions are raised about heterosexual people who may be unsafe and very promiscuous. All it suggests to me is that HIV/Aids is exclusively a gay man's disease, yet we know it isn't.

[Pompey77]

Originally Posted by CharlieP

Isn't there also a ban on men who've slept with prostitutes?

Only for 12 months.

Interestingly they also say you should wait 12 months after being sexually active in countries where HIV is common. So for a straight person its ok to wait 12 months for HIV to develop enough so it will show up in tests, but for a gay person 10 years! there can be no medical evidence to back that!

[Medo]

Gay blood will make you gay!

[ferge]

Originally Posted by Medo

Gay blood will make you gay!

What if you give it to a gay man? Would that make them straight?

[nezzybaby]

Originally Posted by Medo

Gay blood will make you gay!

And probably give you cooties too.

[manrush]

Of course, seeing as how most gay men aren't infected with HIV.

[alonzo-ny]

Yes.

[WatcherZero]

53% of HIV carriers in the UK and 48% in the USA are male homosexuals, if you assume the usual 1/10 sexuality rate you can do the maths about why their considered medically a higher risk group.

[tuten]

Originally Posted by WatcherZero

53% of HIV carriers in the UK and 48% in the USA are male homosexuals, if you assume the usual 1/10 sexuality rate you can do the maths about why their considered medically a higher risk group.

So? All blood is tested after its donated.

[WatcherZero]

Originally Posted by tuten

So? All blood is tested after its donated.

It takes 6-12 weeks after someone is infected before antibodies show up in a blood test (in fact in extreme cases can take 6 months), the persons blood would still be infectious and it would pass a screening test and enter the general blood bank.

Someone isnt considered safe until they can pass a blood test 3 months after exposure.

OK, which means 3 million gay men in the UK and just over 100,000 who are HIV+ which includes heterosexuals.

So yes, you do the maths.

Homosexual Male 2.05% or 1/50
Straight Male/Female/Lesbian 0.09% or 1/1111

[Pompey77]

Originally Posted by WatcherZero

It takes 6-12 weeks after someone is infected before antibodies show up in a blood test (in fact in extreme cases can take 6 months), the persons blood would still be infectious and it would pass a screening test and enter the general blood bank.

Someone isnt considered safe until they can pass a blood test 3 months after exposure.



Homosexual Male 2.05% or 1/50
Straight Male/Female/Lesbian 0.09% or 1/1111

So there is no medical reason for a blanket ban. The only medical requirement would be a 6 month period of celibacy (not a decade as proposed by the review) to allow for completely reliable results.

[WatcherZero]

Originally Posted by Pompey77

So there is no medical reason for a blanket ban. The only medical requirement would be a 6 month period of celibacy (not a decade as proposed by the review) to allow for completely reliable results.

Medicine is all about managing risks, 80% chance this drug might cure him, 5% chance it may leave him with Kidney damage, 0.01% chance it may kill him, should I give him this drug or first try and use Drug B which only has a 50% chance to cure but has no side effects but if it doesnt work he may get worse and drug A might be too late?

[Pompey77]

Originally Posted by WatcherZero

53% of HIV carriers in the UK and 48% in the USA are male homosexuals, if you assume the usual 1/10 sexuality rate you can do the maths about why their considered medically a higher risk group.

Of course but thats just a simple statistic, it paints the entire community with the same brush and ignores the fact that most gay men are HIV negative and monogamous and therefore can have less chance of contracting HIV than the average straight person. If you were to do similar sums for all the races of the earth they would ban black people for the same reason, no?

[Tubeman]

Originally Posted by Pompey77

Of course but thats just a simple statistic, it paints the entire community with the same brush and ignores the fact that most gay men are HIV negative and monogamous and therefore can have less chance of contracting HIV than the average straight person. If you were to do similar sums for all the races of the earth they would ban black people for the same reason, no?

Is there a stance on Subsaharan Africans? I'd be interested to see if someone newly immigrated from Botswana, Uganda, Zimbabwe or any other country with HIV rates worse than the UK gay male community was allowed to donate or not.

Also, Gay men are I'd expect far more likely to be aware of their HIV+ status than heterosexuals... i.e. a much bigger % of heterosexuals who are HIV+ don't know they are than Gay men, so even though a disproportionate % of Gay men are HIV+ compared to heterosexuals, they'd much more likely be aware of this and therefore not attempt to give blood anyway.

In terms of human rights, I don't give a shit. It's like being told I'm not allowed to donate to Oxfam... so be it, their loss.

[pricemazda]

Originally Posted by WatcherZero

53% of HIV carriers in the UK and 48% in the USA are male homosexuals, if you assume the usual 1/10 sexuality rate you can do the maths about why their considered medically a higher risk group.

OK, which means 3 million gay men in the UK and just over 100,000 who are HIV+ which includes heterosexuals.

So yes, you do the maths.