So I Was Giving Blood Today......

CrazyTalk

And there I was looking at the list of criteria, and apparently if you've EVER had any kind of sex with another man, with or without protection, you're not eligible to donate..

I'm sure plenty of you know about this already. I'm not gay, and it came as a shock to me, considering I thought the stigma about 'gays n' aids' was long gone, since the 90's or so.

L1011

I believe its the same in the UK and pretty much nowhere else though. Just allows themselves to con themselves in to thinking they can do less rigorous tests. You're banned for only a year after using a heterosexual prostitute - despite many STDs having longer incubation periods or time-to-noticed in otherwise healthy people.

Makes for a nice irony - of the 4 Westlife boys that are the IBTS spokes, erm, band - one is gay and one of them lived in the UK for a long time (played for Leeds I think) - meaning half the entire band is on the banned list for donations...

unreggd

Fvck that

Theres always them ads sayin how bad they need blood, and people are dying from not gettin blood, then they've stuff like this

I thought that last statistic showed more straights with HIV?

CrazyTalk

unreggd wrote: »

I thought that last statistic showed more straights with HIV?

Thats the verry first thought that came into my head when I read the it on the sheet. I actually had to reread it two times more to make sure I wasnt imagining things :mad:

Rev Hellfire

As a percentage of overall population I thought it was lower among hetrosexuals, which if that is still the case makes it justifiable in order to protect the blood supply.

unreggd

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

As a percentage of overall population I thought it was lower among hetrosexuals, which if that is still the case makes it justifiable in order to protect the blood supply.

Either way, its discrimination

All the straight people giving blood could easily be the percentage with HIV, AIDs etc

I'd never have unprotected sex with a girl, even if shes on the pill [bar a long term gf after an STI check, which I'd get meself]
and I think thats why its on the rise, more girls are on the pill, so theres more unprotected sex

its all about lack of education, people have always seen condoms as just pregnancy control, so gays, or girls on the pill wouldnt need them

Rev Hellfire

unreggd wrote: »

Either way, its discrimination

All the straight people giving blood could easily be the percentage with HIV, AIDs etc

I'd never have unprotected sex with a girl, even if shes on the pill [bar a long term gf after an STI check, which I'd get meself]
and I think thats why its on the rise, more girls are on the pill, so theres more unprotected sex

its all about lack of education, people have always seen condoms as just pregnancy control, so gays, or girls on the pill wouldnt need them

Of course its discrimination, they're discriminating against groups which have a higher statistical risk of infecting the blood supply.
Surely you don’t believe they should allow groups which may potentially risk the integrity of such a service simply to be “right on man”.

The fact that lesbians aren’t excluded shows that it is purely on the grounds of the health risk.

Boston

Erm, There is/was a mind set Rev, that there's no such think as Lesbians. Anyway, yes, it have a higher prevalence among men who engage in sex with other men.

Dr.Louis

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

they're discriminating against groups which have a higher statistical risk of infecting the blood supply.

Two things- just because you're gay doesn't mean you partake in the risks (ie anal sex) that can lead to infection and also I'm pretty sure that just as many heterosuxuals (based on common sense, not statistics) have anal sex too.

The most recent research in ireland into STD/STI infection and spread shows that a higher percentage (not just more people) of heterosexuals have HIV/AIDS than homosexuals do.

The whole point is that they shouldn't be trying to reduce the amount of infected blood by discrimination, they should be reducing it by screening it for such infections (which I think they do anyway, so that makes their discrimination even more pointless!?!)

I just think its a way of 'saving face' after the despicable hepatitis scandal, they're trying to show their efforts by playing into the bigger majority's hands (ie heterosexuals still feel that homosexuals have a higher rate of infection so that justifies their discrimination)

Anyway, rant over...

Boston

when you take drug users out of the equation is it still true that a higher percentage of heterosexuals have STIs. If so I'd like to read what ever study you've based that comment on.

It is true that the rate of heterosexual infection is greater the homosexual could that be what you refer to?

williambonney

What lesbians do to each other is (physically) more or less pretty harmless. (Ok, they use sex toys etc, but they are inanimate objects that just need a good cleaning before and after use.)Some Homosexual men on the other hand, stick living (throbbing?) parts of their anatomy into an unspeakable orifice of another mans body. And from what I am led to believe they (gays) tend to be fairly promiscuous. Now I am not anti gay, each to his own, it’s none of my business what people get up to. But where blood transfusions are concerned, we just can’t be too careful can we?

Boston

williambonney wrote: »

But where blood transfusions are concerned, we just can’t be too careful can we?

Thats relative. I'm a rare blood type (O negative) if you had to make a choice between dying on an operating table (or even delaying a life saving operation) due to an inability to obtain blood, would you still have problems accepting fully tested and verified blood from a homosexual?

There are practices which are more unsafe then other, such as anal sex and being promiscuous, however these are not the things which bar you from given blood. So yes, you may receive blood from a sexual defiant, don't let a ban on gay/bi men convince you otherwise.

williambonney

As I have said in my previous post, a person’s sexuality is of no concern to me. But I would be of the opinion that we just cannot be too careful where the containment of aids is concerned. And of course all sub Saharan Africans entering this country should be tested for aids. Africa is unfortunately awash with the disease due mainly to the promiscuity of heterosexual men. By the way, I am also O RH neg.

Boston

williambonney wrote: »

As I have said in my previous post, a person’s sexuality is of no concern to me. But I would be of the opinion that we just cannot be too careful where the containment of aids is concerned. And of course all sub Saharan Africans entering this country should be tested for aids. Africa is unfortunately awash with the disease due mainly to the promiscuity of heterosexual men. By the way, I am also O RH neg.

You can be straight and be a defiant.

Why test them when you've stated you wouldn't take blood even if it was tested?

williambonney

Sub Saharan Africans would not be allowed to donate here anyway. But they should all be tested as a matter of course. If they are infected they would pass on the disease via sexual activity.

Boston

I'm aware of that. How would you feel about being tested as a matter of course since if you were infected, you would pass on the disease via sexual activity. Surely one cannot be too cautious when it comes to HIV.

williambonney

I am talking about people who come here from Africa where aids is endemic. No need to test people who come from places where the disease is not so prevalent. Sub Saharan Africa is absolutely alive with aids. I am amazed that any Africans are allowed into the EU at all without being tested.

LegacyUser

Profile the blood, not the people providing it. All blood should be tested fully anyway, regardless of all other factors. Where people are from or who they shag is completely irrelevant if the blood has proven to be okay.

unreggd

williambonney wrote: »

I am talking about people who come here from Africa where aids is endemic. No need to test people who come from places where the disease is not so prevalent. Sub Saharan Africa is absolutely alive with aids. I am amazed that any Africans are allowed into the EU at all without being tested.

Yes, cos hardly anyone in Ireland has HIV/AIDs

and the ones that do have the acceptable kind

You really dont know what you're on about

Aids is Aids

Rev Hellfire

unreggd wrote: »

Yes, cos hardly anyone in Ireland has HIV/AIDs

and the ones that do have the acceptable kind

You really dont know what you're on about

Aids is Aids

Aids is indeed aids, but the issue here is risk management.

To even compare Aids in the sub-Sahara to European levels is beyond the ridiculous; certainly I’d totally agree with a total ban on blood donors from that region as well.

Podge_irl

Dr.Louis wrote: »

The whole point is that they shouldn't be trying to reduce the amount of infected blood by discrimination, they should be reducing it by screening it for such infections (which I think they do anyway, so that makes their discrimination even more pointless!?!)

They do indeed test the bloody. However, like all such tests, they are not 100% accurate. As such they take extra measures to reduce risks by eliminating all "high-risk" categories from donating. This includes both intravenous drug users and homosexual men.

Do I think its wrong? To be honest, I'm torn on the matter. My best friend is gay, and as he points out, he gets tested more often than I ever would. But statistics are statistics, and (I believe) a higher proportion of gay men have the HiV virus and therefore there is a greater chance of it getting past the tests and into the blood donation system. I think that this is one area where perceived discrimination shouldn't come into it, but rather there should be a rigorous scientific study into the risks involved. As things stand, and I admit I haven't fully studied the issue, I assume that such a study has been done and this is the best system they have come up with. It's unfortunate, but then they also "discriminate" against people who were born or lived in England at a certain time despite the risk of them actually having vCJD being very small (I think that is why the restrictions are in place) and similarly for those abroad in malarial areas etc. They just don't accept blood from perceived high-risk groups - and these high-risk groups are defined, I presume, through scientific study rather than ingrained biases.

XJR

This is going on years, I first came across this when I tried to give blood in college nearly two decades ago and I suppose you could understand it then. It sort of miffed me at the time but to be honest I really don't give a crap anymore. Mind you I was of the impression that the rate HIV infection was decreasing among gay men while it was increasing among straights so does the embargo still hold up?

Boston

Podge_irl wrote: »

They do indeed test the bloody. However, like all such tests, they are not 100% accurate. As such they take extra measures to reduce risks by eliminating all "high-risk" categories from donating. This includes both intravenous drug users and homosexual men.

Do I think its wrong? To be honest, I'm torn on the matter. My best friend is gay, and as he points out, he gets tested more often than I ever would. But statistics are statistics, and (I believe) a higher proportion of gay men have the HiV virus and therefore there is a greater chance of it getting past the tests and into the blood donation system. I think that this is one area where perceived discrimination shouldn't come into it, but rather there should be a rigorous scientific study into the risks involved. As things stand, and I admit I haven't fully studied the issue, I assume that such a study has been done and this is the best system they have come up with. It's unfortunate, but then they also "discriminate" against people who were born or lived in England at a certain time despite the risk of them actually having vCJD being very small (I think that is why the restrictions are in place) and similarly for those abroad in malarial areas etc. They just don't accept blood from perceived high-risk groups - and these high-risk groups are defined, I presume, through scientific study rather than ingrained biases.

I think the problem is that it is based on certain statistics and higher risk groupings rather then common sense and higher risk activities. A woman who has sex with a man who has had sex with another man is banned for 6 months (last I looked, maybe less now) where as both men are banned for life. How does that make sense, is a women likely to contract HIV then a man somehow?

Why don't they look at the 18 to 25 age range? This is the age range most likely to contract STIs and without a doubt would be a higher risk then homosexuals in general. Also no distinction is made between 'safe' sex and unsafe sex, or oral sex and anal/virginal sex. Thats where the problem is. Its this blanket dumb one size fits all solution which actually just puts people at a higher risk.

dory

What would happen if a really camp gay guy walked in and wanted to give blood? Could he just lie on the form and work away?

My €0.02; it's ridiculous. I know a load of guys who are not promiscuous and would donate but can't because of this law. And I know a lot of straight men and females who don't donate anyway but I wouldn't be too surprised if they had a few foreign objects swimming around their blood.

Boston

It's my understanding you have to sign document stating that the above facts are true before you can give blood. That would open you up to a lot of problems if you lied on it.

DeVore

This confuses the hell out of me, I mean... they test ALL blood donated right? Its not a statistical sampling so the prevalence in particular sectors of the populace is complete irrelevant.

Either this person, donating blood here and now, has the virus or they dont.

DeV.

Boston

I think the argument is that no test is 100% and given the now common practice of rushing blood through testing due to shortages, its unlikely to be near 100%. So if you remove high risk groups completely, thats your course grained filtering, and the tests themselves are the fine grained filters.

Edit: Afaik, the blood is also treated, not just tested.

DubArk

If any most of you really are interested in not talking through your arse holes Id advise that you educate yourselves before you talk any more rubbish “My best friend is gay” ………….“And of course all sub Saharan Africans entering this country should be tested for aids”

What’s important is learning the facts.
Not some sort of inbuilt mesh mash of urban myth mixed with some factual truths.

http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&con=114

In theory, anyone can donate blood but there are certain groups who should not. All donated blood is tested before it is given to patients.
You should never donate blood if you are in one of the following groups:

• You are a male who has had sex with another male
• You have ever used a needle to take drugs of any kind
• You or your partner is HIV positive
• You have had jaundice after the age of 13 years or you contracted jaundice under the age of 13 years that was caused by Hepatitis B or C

• You have spent more than one year in the United Kingdom between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1996 (this is to protect against any risk of vCJD transmission via blood). The United Kingdom includes England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
• You have received a blood transfusion in the Republic of Ireland since 1 January 1980.

Boston

Could you stop posting using non-default fonts and colors. Not everyone is using the same skin as you, and writing in black for instance doesn't show up.

L1011

DubArk wrote: »

• You have had jaundice after the age of 13 years or you contracted jaundice under the age of 13 years that was caused by Hepatitis B or C

They changed that rule - used to cover non hepatatis caused neo-natal jaundice, or so I was told by a IBTS employee.

Would mean I was otherwise allowed to donate blood, then. Oh well, still down a potential donor anyway.

moridin

DubArk wrote: »

If any most of you really are interested in not talking through your arse holes Id advise that you educate yourselves before you talk any more rubbish “My best friend is gay” ………….“And of course all sub Saharan Africans entering this country should be tested for aids”

What’s important is learning the facts.
Not some sort of inbuilt mesh mash of urban myth mixed with some factual truths.

<snip blah blah anyone can look up a website but what does it have to do with the discussion/snip>

Instead of just quoting which groups that can't donate, this thread was about why there is still the restriction for males who've ever had sex with another male.

If you'd like to further the discussion then please do so, but quoting what we already know [i.e. restrictions put in place in Ireland] doesn't add anything to the thread.