Fight to allow gay blood donors

Kazobel

MYOB wrote: »

Its a weekend. There's not many people online. Oh, and you quite obviously *dearly* care what I think, or you wouldn't be replying now would you?

I find it fascinating that you're still at it, though. And if you think that right now there's no risk of your children getting tainted blood off the IBTS, you're in a fantasy world. Unless your idea of tainted is "oh no, they might catch teh gay", of course.

2 days and still no one else, the weekend had nothing to do with it methinket.

"dearly", don't flatter yourself lol. Gay, Straight what does it matter? you're male so you're opinion means nothing to me, you're the one whos arguments have been to try change what I think to get me to agree with you whereas I've just been saying what I think and ignoring your delusions because...well they're wrong.

Why would I care if my kid was gay? frankly if it was a choice between them being gay and being TS I'd pick gay everytime, from what I've seen being Gay is easy

L1011

You're still replying. Thats something that someone who doesn't care doesn't do.

Love that automatic block exclusion of the opinions of anyone male there - and you expect to be taken seriously in *any* arguments, do you?

Kazobel

I suppose I could list a load of things that I care less about than your opinion like Soccer, peoples opinions on Ugg boots, Sex and the City, the Lisbon Treaty...etc but knowing you can't stop is funny, You're still the only one having a drama queen moment about it, the gay solidarity on here is only astounding, it's nice to know Pride is in a month, maybe they can print off this thread just to prove how much it matters to them and the rainbow flag can just be Red? "We're here, We're Queer, let us donate a litre"

L1011

The person who claims they have no interest yet appears to be latched to this thread and then claiming someone else "can't stop" is about the only funny thing here.

If you don't care about my opinion, stop commenting on it. Thats obvious, surely? Its not like you're being legally oblidged to read this thread now are you?

You've got a massive chip on your shoulder about this forum, at that. But again, nobodies oblidging you to come on to it. Theres ~900 other forums on b.ie if you're that pushed for somewhere to blather.

moridin

Ugh, reply got chomped by the boards gremlins.

Okay, here's the thing. Kazobel doesn't want his/her (sorry, I can't tell which you are) kids infected by a bad batch of blood, possibly donated by a gay guy. Well there's really only one thing for it then, you better make sure that your kids never need a transfusion, because the risk is there already and the current rules let plenty of "high risk" people donate.

To touch another point, Rev Hellfire mentions about the per capita business and while gay people are lower in % of new HIV infections it's still a high amount given the size of the gay community. Now I'm not familiar with this 60% study, but lets just turn the tables a second.

If there's already a small risk of infection, then allowing gay people to donate won't actually increase this much. Why? Because they're a small number of people compared to the actual population.

In an equal world, the ideal situation IMO is to treat everyone the same, and ask them the same questions. If it's possible to tighten up the regulations so STI-infested slags can't donate (either gay or straight) then go for it, make it so. A lot of the people currently excluded would still be excluded, but the people who are low risk (regardless of sexuality) could donate.

But you should not single out one set of people and implement a blanket ban on them just because you're assuming something about their lifestyle. It's a kludge, a quick band-aid which doesn't address the actual root of the problem.

I'll just add that it's been a long time since I've read anything as offensive as this:

"We're here, We're Queer, let us donate a litre"

Who the hell do you think you are? I hope you manage to raise your kids to be better people than you are yourself. From what I've seen of your character over the last few posts perhaps they'd be better off in the long run without you around.


Edit: Oh, and if I don't bother replying to this, it's because I don't really check boards much anymore, not because your response has left me dumbfounded

Rev Hellfire

moridin wrote: »

But you should not single out one set of people and implement a blanket ban on them just because you're assuming something about their lifestyle. It's a kludge, a quick band-aid which doesn't address the actual root of the problem.

I think perhaps people should actually look at what is resitricted, MYOP has done an excellent job of misrepresenting the facts.
Gay's as a subgroup are not actually barred, rather and quote from the ibts site itself "You are a male who has ever had anal or oral sex with another male, even if a condom or other form of protection was used".

Since anal sex has a significantly higher risk of transmission it makes sense to bar them on health grounds.

Stark

Kazobel wrote:

...

MYOB wrote:

...

Okay, back on topic please. Stick to facts, not insults.

L1011

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think perhaps people should actually look at what is resitricted, MYOP has done an excellent job of misrepresenting the facts.
Gay's as a subgroup are not actually barred, rather and quote from the ibts site itself "You are a male who has ever had anal or oral sex with another male, even if a condom or other form of protection was used".

Since anal sex has a significantly higher risk of transmission it makes sense to bar them on health grounds.

So why are women who have had anal sex not banned?
So why are men who have been on the receiving end of oral sex off a woman not banned?
So why are men who have partaken in anal sex with a woman not banned?

Risk factor remains the same act-for-act. Facts have not been misrepresented.

Rev Hellfire

Well to answer your question I would assume that the medical professionals have deemed males in the proscribed activities to be statically a higher risk group and as such barred them.

But perhaps rather than talking around the point you could provide us with credible medical data which refutes the premise that such participants are statistically a greater risk to the integrity of the blood supply.
Thereby disproving the validity of such a restriction.

L1011

Considering you're the one thats stated that males participating in those activities are a higher risk, but prefixed with "assume", I'd like you to provide credible medical data for that first, thanks. One assumption maker can't call on another for proof now can they?

Rev Hellfire

No offence but since I'm not the one standing contrary to current medical opinion I don't feel the need to research it. I trust that they the experts have researched the topic and have come to an informed opinion based on their knowledge and expertise. That’s good enough for me.
You on the other hand refute this and as such I'm interested in seeing why you believe the IBTS (and most other blood transfusion services worldwide) have got it wrong. I'm assuming your opinion is based on a more than a gut feeling.

L1011

You're the one demanding evidence who's clearly unable to find any for your own position.

Find some *current* evidence - not from the early 1980s when the decision was made and there was scant understanding of HIV and it was assumed that it was solely a 'gay disease' - and come back to me.

As goes my opinion - I work on the fringes of the medical profession and have read widely on HIV and other STIs, transmission vectors, treatments, etc. Its not based on a hunch. My opinion is not that they've "got it wrong", per se, but that their exclusion criterion are based on very old and lazy research and that an updated set would actually reduce the risk to the blood supply which currently exists from high-risk allowed groups without leaving themselves in a situation where they themselves admit they discriminate. Remember after all that discrimination based on grounds of the states three recognised sexual orientations is illegal.

Rev Hellfire

MYOB wrote: »

You're the one demanding evidence who's clearly unable to find any for your own position.

But I've no reason to look, I'm quite happy with the current situation and really have no reason to wish to validate it. As I said before if those who are educated in such matters believe it to be so I'm happy to accept that it is so.

The onus lies with you to disprove the validity of the status quo.

L1011

You were the one who answered a question with "I assume", though - prior to asking me anything. Until you can turn that assumption in to something solid I'm not answering any requests for further information from you. Can't give without take, and you provided the opening shot, so to speak...

L1011

Actually, to prevent accusations of not being able to provide any information, I'm going to do it anyway.

The IBTS currently ban men who have one sexual encounter with another man from donating blood for life. This is despite the testing window for HIV being as low as 12 days (http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2001/ANS01103.html - US govt. source).

It doesn't provide any seperation between oral sex - during which both partners are at a lower risk of infection than during heterosexual sex; and anal sex, where the penetrative partner is at a lower risk than the receptive partner in heterosexual sex. If they classify the risk of transmission in any single incident of oral sex as being too high, they should be barring any woman who's ever had penetrative sex too, due to the 10 to 20 times higher risk this holds... yet they don't. (transmission figures from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5402a1.htm#tab1 - US govt. source again).

The 1980s assumption that men who have sex with men have significantly more partners has been shown to be untrue with over 70% having had only one partner in the last year in an ESRI survey (http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20061016131112/BKMNEXT084_Main%20Report.pdf). The report helpfully doesn't provide similar figures for heterosexuals but I doubt its far off - I'll admit defeat in finding any proof of this.

The same report shows that only 17% of men who fell in to the category of having had genital sexual contact (which would mean they were barred for life from donating blood) had had anal sex in the past year. This is the sole form of contact for which there are higher rates of transmission than for heterosexuals. 68% had never done it at all. Only 30% of the men had ever been the penetrated partner - this being the only mode with a significantly higher rate of transmission than its heterosexual counterpart. About half the 30% had done it in the past year - 15%.

Even taking the very old and traditional 30 day time period since last sexual contact to elapse - lets not expect the IBTS to have top-notch screening facilities here - this would allow about 70% of all currently excluded people to donate.

The survey also shows that we're well behind Europe in levels of STI testing. I'm dropping in to hearsay/presumption mode here, but based on the fact that all of my gay friends have been tested at some stage, and only one of my straight friends have; I've a feeling that if we reached European norms on STI testing, the prevelance of HIV amongst heterosexuals would rise significantly as a percentage of overall cases...

Kazobel

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But I've no reason to look, I'm quite happy with the current situation and really have no reason to wish to validate it. As I said before if those who are educated in such matters believe it to be so I'm happy to accept that it is so.

The onus lies with you to disprove the validity of the status quo.

+1, what he said

Rev Hellfire

Well your statistics and argument certainly do present a compelling argument for the refinement of the ban on sexual active gay males when compared to their heterosexual counterparts if we work on the assumption that both populations carry an equal risk of compromising the blood supply.

The problem for me (and I guess also for you, though we take opposing viewpoints on this matter) is that it seems that the medical community and the statutory bodies which oversee the various BTS believe this not to be the case.

Ultimately I guess these are the people those who wish for a relaxation on the ban must convince.

Annasopra

Kazobel wrote: »

* all gay guys live a lifestyle that is high risk
* Gay men in general are high risk,
* any gay sex is high risk
* gay guys blood is high risk
* Gay Male = High risk simple as
* GAY MEN ARE HIGH RISK

Repeating yourself ad nauseam doesnt make you correct - As I have pointed out the ESRI which is an extremely reputable organisation has disproved your theory and opinion - you can keep saying "it's logic ..... it's logic......gay men are high risk, the ban is logical....... but it doesn't mean that you are correct"

Anal sex is the riskiest type of sex - yet over 70% of gay men haven't had anal sex -

so again I will say this Kazzie - you are making statement after statement after statement - however they are clearly uninformed and untrue

markw999

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Anal sex is the riskiest type of sex - yet over 70% of gay men haven't had anal sex -

Couldn't see the source for this - where'd you find the statistic for this?

Thanks

L1011

markw999 wrote: »

Couldn't see the source for this - where'd you find the statistic for this?

Thanks

ESRI sexual health report, I linked to it higher on this page and it was linked to before too.

Bottle_of_Smoke

MYOB wrote: »

Actually, to prevent accusations of not being able to provide any information, I'm going to do it anyway.

The IBTS currently ban men who have one sexual encounter with another man from donating blood for life. This is despite the testing window for HIV being as low as 12 days (http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2001/ANS01103.html - US govt. source).

It doesn't provide any seperation between oral sex - during which both partners are at a lower risk of infection than during heterosexual sex; and anal sex, where the penetrative partner is at a lower risk than the receptive partner in heterosexual sex. If they classify the risk of transmission in any single incident of oral sex as being too high, they should be barring any woman who's ever had penetrative sex too, due to the 10 to 20 times higher risk this holds... yet they don't. (transmission figures from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5402a1.htm#tab1 - US govt. source again).

Listen, that's well and good but when they say they're higher risk methods they're talking about with an infected partner. Statistics show those infected are more likely to be homosexual. So even if a woman performs oral, there's a 90% chance its on a straight man. Whereas if a guy performs oral, there's a 99.9% chance its on a gay man, & probably previously active, who's more likely to be infected. Out of the 250ish people infected in ireland in 06 around 20% were homosexual men. Though only 5% of the general population are homosexual men, how do you explain that? Also bear in mind 50% of the infected were sub-saharan African immigrants.(another high risk group you don't hear whining about their "right" to donate blood)

The 1980s assumption that men who have sex with men have significantly more partners has been shown to be untrue with over 70% having had only one partner in the last year in an ESRI survey (http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20061016131112/BKMNEXT084_Main%20Report.pdf). The report helpfully doesn't provide similar figures for heterosexuals but I doubt its far off - I'll admit defeat in finding any proof of this.

The same report shows that only 17% of men who fell in to the category of having had genital sexual contact (which would mean they were barred for life from donating blood) had had anal sex in the past year. This is the sole form of contact for which there are higher rates of transmission than for heterosexuals. 68% had never done it at all. Only 30% of the men had ever been the penetrated partner - this being the only mode with a significantly higher rate of transmission than its heterosexual counterpart. About half the 30% had done it in the past year - 15%.

Even taking the very old and traditional 30 day time period since last sexual contact to elapse - lets not expect the IBTS to have top-notch screening facilities here - this would allow about 70% of all currently excluded people to donate.

The survey also shows that we're well behind Europe in levels of STI testing. I'm dropping in to hearsay/presumption mode here, but based on the fact that all of my gay friends have been tested at some stage, and only one of my straight friends have; I've a feeling that if we reached European norms on STI testing, the prevelance of HIV amongst heterosexuals would rise significantly as a percentage of overall cases...

Find some of this hard to believe, out of all of my friends who are gay only one is in a monogamous relationship, the rest are insanely promiscuous. (Though I'd probably be the same if women were as promiscuous as men.)

You're right about the testing, it is more of a gay thing to do, but I've been fully tested & so was my last girlfriend, some of my friends too. I think it's becoming a more "normal" thing to do. Still though, I don't think HIV lies as dormant as the internet makes out. When I was getting tested the doc was saying I'd have a lot of symptoms if I was infected.

Let's be honest, this whole debate is about homos being annoyed that they can't do something heteros can. You never hear of people who lived in the UK during the BSE scare complaining about not being allowed to donate.

L1011

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You never hear of people who lived in the UK during the BSE scare complaining about not being allowed to donate.

Except for one in this thread... (too many pages to find the specific post/poster right now).

As goes the ESRI report, if you find it inaccurate, you can complain to them that their sampling/testing methods are unsuitable/incorrect, but as theres no actual evidence to suggest its wrong other than hearsay it should be taken as being as correct as any other reports they do.

Rev Hellfire

Well as the old quote goes "There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I don't think bottle_of_smoke is disputing the statistics given rather how they are been interpreted. Their point that the risks and statistics associated with sexually active homosexual males are accumulative is a valid one.