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

DubArk

moridin wrote: »

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.

Of course that’s your opinion and you entitled to that at the very least.
I was only trying to establish the facts and if you’d read what I had written maybe you just might of picked that up?! I wanted to make sure all knew what was NOT allowed.
Again if I want in any way to contribute to any discussion I will without your permission.:rolleyes:

Boston

You're just delightful aren't you.

swiss

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”

We are aware of the facts. In fact they were mentioned in the first post. This thread is debating them, which tends to happen in a debate forum. You are of course entitled to state your opinion but you're not helping yourself with your attitude.

DeVore wrote:

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.

They do test all blood yes, but there is a period of I believe about 3 weeks from the time in which a person can contract HIV and the point where it shows up in tests. I don't know enough about the testing procedure to know whether there is a workaround for this, but I imagine this is the reason why they're taking extra precautions.

As for the rule itself, while I understand the reasoning behind it I can't help but feel theres a double standard where straight people who have had multiple sexual partners can donate but a gay person who engages in safe sex with one partner cannot.

One solution that was proposed the last time this came around was the idea that a blanket ban be imposed on everyone who has engaged in risky activity for one year. I think this is a reasonable solution that ensures the safety of our blood supplies whilst ensuring as many people as possible have the opportunity to donate.

DubArk

swiss wrote: »

We are aware of the facts. In fact they were mentioned in the first post. This thread is debating them, which tends to happen in a debate forum. You are of course entitled to state your opinion but you're not helping yourself with your attitude.

I worked back in the 80’s in the Terrence Higgins Trust in the budding group. This was a volunteer group of people that went around to people homes with AIDS that needed day to day help or just a shoulder to cry on. Back then there were no drugs to help there was nothing at all.

I attended the very first meetings in Bart’s Hospital in London to try and get a grip of the facts rather then the myths that were flying around.
I am not HIV positive but none the less felt that I should inform myself with as much knowledge as could and can.
I can’t see anything wrong with my attitude. I just felt that I had a right to an input in this discussion.

I am gay and have been refused from giving blood although till the new rules came into the UK I had donated for years. I won’t give blood now; first because im asked not to because of the Gay rule and two because I lived in the UK during the beef crisis.

I don’t find a problem with the rules as they have to be general as their doing their best here and in the UK to protect people from contaminated bloods. AIDS and HIV still are incurable and change with each new strain and therefore till medicine does finally get to grips with the virus, the rules are a necessity.

moridin

DubArk wrote: »

I am not HIV positive but none the less felt that I should inform myself with as much knowledge as could and can.
I can’t see anything wrong with my attitude. I just felt that I had a right to an input in this discussion.

Sure, anyone can have an input in the discussion, but posting a link to AIDS 101 and re-stating the facts under discussion don't add anything and can't really be taken as "input" IMO.

I am gay and have been refused from giving blood although till the new rules came into the UK I had donated for years. I won’t give blood now; first because im asked not to because of the Gay rule and two because I lived in the UK during the beef crisis.

I don’t find a problem with the rules as they have to be general as their doing their best here and in the UK to protect people from contaminated bloods. AIDS and HIV still are incurable and change with each new strain and therefore till medicine does finally get to grips with the virus, the rules are a necessity.

My first BF had a very rare blood type and the IBTSB kept spamming him with letters saying "we need your bloodtype, please donate". When he tried to donate then then said "no, you're gay, you can't donate". And kept sending him letters. Annoying much?

I agree with Swiss... ofc I don't want anyone to be infected with contaminated blood, but singling out gay people just because they've had sex at any time in their lives and ignoring the huge number of straight people who have unprotected sex ranks of hypocrisy to me.

unreggd

I dont know why people keep mentioning sub-saharan Africa, cos noones on about testing in general

its in relation to donating blood

As Boston said, singling out the age group is a much better idea

And the other point tryin to be made is that they have their statistics backwards with HIV, so technically they should stick to their principles and not take any blood from straight people who have ever had sex

Rev Hellfire

unreggd wrote: »

And the other point tryin to be made is that they have their statistics backwards with HIV, so technically they should stick to their principles and not take any blood from straight people who have ever had sex

I'm assuming you have proof that the infection rate within the straight population is greater than within (active male)homosexual population on a per-head basis.

moridin

unreggd wrote: »

And the other point tryin to be made is that they have their statistics backwards with HIV, so technically they should stick to their principles and not take any blood from straight people who have ever had sex

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the screening procedure should be robust enough that it shouldn't matter what the sexual orientation of someone is when you're donating blood.

If you've had unprotected sex in the last year then you're a higher risk, regardless of your sexual orientation. If you haven't, then you should have the same rights as the next person, and the screening should be able to catch any problems regardless of who is donating.

Annasopra

DeVore wrote: »

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.

The HIV virus can take up to 3 months to incubate - so a test on the blood may be negative now but poistive in 4 months

DeVore

Ok, but that will affect all sexual preference groups equally. I understand that it introduces a problem for the testing of blood and that donated blood may not be safe as a result (I dont know this for sure). But it does seem to me that either our blood transfusion service cant be sure the blood is safe (due to this time-lag) or they are excluding people based on sexual orientation. Neither seems good...

DeV.

markw999

I worked in the BTSB for a while and am gay and don't really understand it. All blood is tested. I understand that no test is 100% accurate, but as said before, what's the difference between a straight person and a gay person when it comes to that? To presume the level, and frequency of someone's sex life, in this day and age is preposterous.

When I was working there, some friends of mine in college, their LGBT was organising protests against them for that reason, and I supported them. I only ever heard it mentioned there once, in the smoking area. All of the people talking there were straight, and they were saying "I'm sure that there are gay people working there". They had just never really thought about it.

Now, afaik know, rates are higher in the heterosexual community but at the same time, there was that rash of syphilis among gay men about a year/ a year and a half ago.

Personally, if everyone is tested as rigoursly as I know they are, I don't see the problem. Also, it's quite comical to me this ban since I handled blood products all day (sure they were doubly packaged and I had no actual direct contact with the blood, but I'd still have to physically pick up the units etc. - they were double packed in hard plastic - so you could pick them up with no fear, and you would have to, it's part of the job).

And finally, the shortage. When I worked there it was in the summer and there were weeks when the shelves were bare and there was just no blood to give out to hospitals, and all of the gay men that they could be taking blood from obviously weren't being allowed to donate. Also, whoever mentioned on page one that "gays are promiscous" should know better than to make generalisations like that. It's those type of statements that have this ban in effect.

I do remember one interesting conversation in work.

"So do you donate?"
"Me, no..."
"Why not?"
"Well you know the list as well as I do. You work it out. And it wasn't the "living in England" thing..."

unreggd

moridin wrote: »

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the screening procedure should be robust enough that it shouldn't matter what the sexual orientation of someone is when you're donating blood.

I wasnt basing that on any of your posts

LegacyUser

Quote from ibts.ie FAQs ref the blood ban

"This policy causes considerable offence: it is clearly discriminatory against gay men, and categorises all gay men as being at increased risk of HIV; it has also been criticised because it seems to single out gay men to the exclusion of other groups in the community who also have an increased risk of acquiring HIV. In recent years heterosexual females have overtaken IV drug users and homosexual men as the largest group of new HIV cases in Ireland."

This seems a bit nonsensical, they recognise that gay men aren't the highest risk category any more but the ban still remains. I accept that in the past gay men were most at risk to HIV and this hasn't just disappeared, but there are definitely ways around it. If a gay man was to get tested for HIV, 4 months later get re-tested (incubation period) and come back negative both times I don't see why they couldn't give blood assuming they didn't have sex during the 4 months.

That could be extended to two partners who were both tested in this way and stay in a relationship with each other. If they didn't have sex with anyone else there is no reason to view them as any higher risk than a heterosexual couple.

I recently came out to my friends haven't found the one just yet so I'm still eligible to donate blood. On a personal level I want to give blood, despite the fact that the IBTS are making such insulting assumptions about all gay men. However it's important to me to give blood regardless so I think I'll do it before it's too late. I've never taken drugs, drink moderately and don't smoke so after that it's their loss.

MCMLXXXIII

MYOB wrote: »

I believe its the same in the UK and pretty much nowhere else though...

I'm in the US and it's the same. I am not sure if it is law, but the American Red Cross will not allow it.

unreggd wrote: »

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?

I see the same thing as you - posters all over my University saying things like "every 3 minutes someone dies because there isn't enough blood." It doesn't make me feel bad - I offer my assistance and they refuse it, it's kind of like the Red Cross is murdering these people...not me.

Also - I agree with everyone else. They record the information, but nothing tells if you are lying about it all. Who knows if you are black and your family immigrated to Ireland 100 years ago, or if you are just arriving from the sub-Sahara area.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Boston wrote: »

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?

In 2006 23% of the people who caught HIV were homosexuals. When you consider that only around 5% of people are gay men its a very high number.
The majority of the Heterosexuals were of sub-saharan African origin. I think only 2% of the people were Irish male heterosexuals. So over ten times as many gay Irish men caught it than straight.

Basically men are far more promiscuous than women. And straight men don't have someone elses semen inside them after unprotected sex, or if a condom breaks. Lessening the chance of them catching the virus from an infected partner

college_dude wrote:

This policy causes considerable offence: it is clearly discriminatory against gay men, and categorises all gay men as being at increased risk of HIV; it has also been criticised because it seems to single out gay men to the exclusion of other groups in the community who also have an increased risk of acquiring HIV.

Your sexuality actually has nothing to do with it. It's whether or not you've had sex with another man. If I was raped by a guy I'd imagine my blood would be refused. And it applies to Sub-Saharan Africans & anyone who's ever injected a non-prescription drug too.

Stark

People who inject drugs are only banned for a year. A prostitute who regularly had unprotected sex would be okay to give blood a year after she stopped. Get a blowjob off a guy and you're banned for life.

If they attached more conditions to the gay sex ban and/or shortened the duration of the ban, then there'd be much less of an issue.

Zee Deveel

Very interesting thread. I have a friend who works at a needle exchange, and she mentioned as we drove past a van reminding us to give blood that she couldn't give blood due to a drug addiction from years ago. That was her out forever. I mentioned how, if it wasn't for blood transfusions I would be quite dead by now, after having to have a few as a child, but, because of those transfusions, I can never give blood. It doesn't make sense. I had a transfusion to save my life, which it did. Even, after one transfusion, I had a bad reaction, fever, unconsciousness, and I was tested for all the usual suspects, HIV, Hep whatever letter... and was found to be ok. Haven't done anything else that would 'warrant' a lifelong ban on bloodgiving, but even though my blood has been tested and found safe, and I've gone almost 2 decades without any adverse reactions from those transfusions, I'm deemed unsafe to give blood.

I think that, most certainly, the rules should be reviewed. My auntie caught Hep C from a transfusion after giving birth to her kid. Obviously, they weren't careful enough back then, but surely, they can find a happy medium? It is not sensible to alienate so many people from the bloodgiving process. My mother has blood problems, she can't give, which is fair enough, my father had a weird rash for a few years which was blamed on blood problems... a decade odd later, he is still never allowed to give blood. I can't due to my transfusions. For good reasons like my father and mother, I can accept it, an unexplained blood disorder, and severe anaemia and depleted supplies, yeah, fair enough. But I can't cos I had a transfusion almost 20 years ago? Bull. Cos you've had gay sex? Bull. Cos a million years ago, you injected needles? Bull.

Whatever about a time limit after doing certain 'undesirable' acts, that' fair enough. But a lifetime ban, is just silly. Punching your nose to spite your face.

LegacyUser

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Your sexuality actually has nothing to do with it. It's whether or not you've had sex with another man. If I was raped by a guy I'd imagine my blood would be refused. And it applies to Sub-Saharan Africans & anyone who's ever injected a non-prescription drug too.

I'd like to point out that the paragraph you quoted me on was taken directly from the IBTS website. They aren't my words.

Kooli

College_dude wrote: »

Quote from ibts.ie FAQs ref the blood ban

If a gay man was to get tested for HIV, 4 months later get re-tested (incubation period) and come back negative both times I don't see why they couldn't give blood assuming they didn't have sex during the 4 months.

.

How would this solve anything? Then surely the argument would just become 'Why do homosexual people have to provide proof of a negative HIV test when heterosexual people don't? That's DISCRIMINATION!'

As I said in the other similar post, I am not allowed to donate EVER because I spent more than 6 months in Sub-Saharan Africa. I don't view that as offensive. I know the rule is based on assumptions about me that aren't true. But I also acknowledge that I am now part of a high-risk group, and it is simply not worth the IBTS's time, money and effort to open the doors to all the high risk groups and then end up having to discard blood (although they would also of course get clean blood) or risk making mistakes. Better to be safe than sorry here, and I think the rights of the IBTS (who are providing a fantastic service) and the potential recipients come WAY ahead of anyone's right to donate blood.

And how many people never even considered donating blood until they realised they weren't allowed, so now it has become their sacred mission?