Blood donation and Gay men ??

roadrunner16

I was in UCD last week and the blood donation trucks were outside the UCD student union.
They were set up to take blood donations , but outside the hall I saw a stand being run by someone I knew to be in the LGBT.
I asked what the stand was about and they said they were starting a petition to overturn the homophobic and outdated condition that a man who has ever had sex with another man ( the condition doesn't specify even if protection was used ) can never give blood. At first I thought it was a fair point they had and that the petition was justified given the shortage of blood they have , but the more I think about it the less I am sure , while I understand that there is an inherent risk in taking any ones blood at all , is the risk of taking a Gay mans blood any more risky that taking that of a women who has previously had unprotected sex. any opinions. is the condition outdated and homophobic or are the LGBT overreacting ?

P

3ndahalfof6

give blood let them scan it then you will know or just get it done yourself, I would be more worried about humans who love having sex with anything with a pulse, (im guessing the ones with no pulse will not pass anything on)

GTDolanator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3wFHEm33Aw

Millicent

The LGBT society aren't overreacting. HIV rates are climbing fastest in straight people. Also, since the US sees more HIV cases in black people (1 in 16 men, the CDC says :eek:), would it be fair to ban an entire race of people from donating or straight people, should their rates overtake infection rates in gay and bisexual people?

Biggins

roadrunner16 wrote: »

...the more I think about it the less I am sure , while I understand that there is an inherent risk in taking any ones blood at all , is the risk of taking a Gay mans blood any more risky that taking that of a women who has previously had unprotected sex. any opinions. is the condition outdated and homophobic or are the LGBT overreacting ?

P

Said with the best of respect - the best thing you could do if you have genuine worries, is go educate yourself on this matter through genuine related government, educational, medical or human-rights related bodies.

There is a lot of silly inaccuracies being banded around by some, sometimes with their own agenda.

kylith

I think that the ban on gay men is completely outdated. I seem to recall reading that, due to media campaigns raising awareness, homosexual men were one of the lower risk groups, much lower than intravenous drug users.

I know a straight guy who had sex with another guy once*, more than a decade ago, and is still banned from ever giving blood.

*I think it was a drunken, college, 'don't knock it till you've tried it' thing.

Skid

A lot of people who attempt to donate blood are screened out.

If they don't take donations from Gay people (or anyone else) it is based on Medical Evidence, and the policy is intended to protect the recipients of Blood Donations.

It is not done because they don't like Gays.

shopaholic01

It's illogical for several reasons - blood is always screened; a woman may have unprotected sex with a man who, unknown to her, has previously had sex with another man; blood donors may lie about their sexual history; HIV is not exclusive to gay men.

dearg lady

Sometimes I wonder about the restrictions too, when they're supposedly crying out to cut out certain groups seems foolish. The lady who was there when I went in to donate refused to take my blood cos I looked a bit pale, and I said I sometimes take B12 supplements. I'd recently had my iron and b12 levels checked and they were fine, but no dice. She even put a note on my file saying I can never give blood til I get a doctors note. But yet they regularly send me letters and texts asking me to go in and donate.

Millicent

We have quite a low rate of HIV in Ireland. From a population of 4.5 million people, we have only 6,900 cases, 4,900 of those being men (though the sexuality of either group is not identified).

I think Ireland is overstating the risk of contamination from gay men. What I suspect is far more likely is that, following the Hepatitis C scandal, the government is either covering its arse or not willing to spend out on the screening required to identify HIV antibodies in blood.

boomkatalog

If anything were to happen to me or anyone I love I'd be incredibly grateful to anyone gay person that would be willing to selflessly give their own blood to save a life.

Isn't all the blood donated tested anyway?

Sierra 117

Isn't the spread of HIV more prevalent amongst women and not gay men?

There was a time where it made some sense, but it is now a completely irrational restriction.

The rules generally aren't logical. I've eaten more British meat than most people who lived there during the BSE thing and yet I can donate blood. It's not even homophobic, just really stupid.

EDIT: Actually I remembered I can't donate blood for a separate reason. :pac:

jessiejam

They're only going on medical evidence even though it may be outdated. My OH has hemachromatosis ( too much iron in the blood) and can never give blood. His blood is so rich in iron and no doubt would be very beneficial for someone who is low in iron and needs a transfusion.

Its actually very common in ireland but a lot of people wouldn't know they even have it and maybe already give blood.

But they probably don't have the resources to screen it properly so just safer to rule it out in the first place.

yer man!

Deleted User wrote: »

The rules generally aren't logical. I've eaten more British meat than most people who lived there during the BSE thing and yet I can donate blood. It's not even homophobic, just really stupid.

:eek:

yer man!

yer man! wrote: »

:eek:

Well done, have a medal. It's not actually a medal, it's a butt-plug.

Benny_Cake

It was understandable perhaps in the mid-1980s when HIV/AIDS was little understood and seemed to be largely confined to the gay community. At this point though it is completely pointless, but I would say it's inertia and the fear of touching a hot potato rather than outright homophobia. As always, the gay community will have to campaign and make it more hassle to keep the ban than get rid of it.

thunderdog

I can't donate blood due to the BSE thing in Enlgand during the 80s and having Glandular Fever as a teenager. Yes I am riddled with disease!!

But my brother, who is a doctor, would love to donate but he can't because he is gay. It does seem a bit strict.

I've often wondered, overall if it is true that gay men have a higerh % of STD's than straight. I know specifically with blood donation we're mostly looking at HIV, but what about overall?

1ZRed

kylith wrote: »

I think that the ban on gay men is completely outdated. I seem to recall reading that, due to media campaigns raising awareness, homosexual men were one of the lower risk groups, much lower than intravenous drug users.

I know a straight guy who had sex with another guy once*, more than a decade ago, and is still banned from ever giving blood.

*I think it was a drunken, college, 'don't knock it till you've tried it' thing.

I think that's an interesting point that many people miss. There are so many men who have had sex with other men, if they were curious, bisexual or had a one off, yet identify as straight. Some of these men would hide what they've done and lie to remain closeted. I know this to be true because I've met them.

I've been propositioned to have unprotected sex by men like this, of course I refused yet they could be having unprotected sex with their girlfriends and spread any possible diseases on. So these men who identify as straight but hide it, could* donate blood but me, a gay man who has never had unprotected sex with a man or woman, can't ever. It's wrong.

As much as I see this blood ban as outdated I understand the reasoning behind it in the first place but it doesn't hold up anymore.
At the least some barriers have to be introduced like in mainland UK, where MSM can donate blood of they haven't had sex with another man in over a year. At the very least, it's something.

* I know they can't or shouldn't by the regulations, but if they identify as straight but have have had sex with other men and were closeted, I believe a lot wouldn't be adverse to lying.

MJ23

If i needed a transfusion and they were going to give me gay blood, id have to decline and ask for non gay blood.

boomkatalog

Does anyone know what the exact wording is? Is it 'are you homosexual?' or does it ask 'have you ever had anal, oral or vaginal sex unprotected?'

The issue can't simply be anal sex, sure then a lot of women couldn't give blood either.

Dravokivich

boomkatalog wrote: »

Isn't all the blood donated tested anyway?

There's limitations regarding what they can test as a lot of stuff can have high incubation periods and/or a long period of time before they can be detected within a sample.

A lot of it relies heavily on the interview stage prior to taking the donation AFAIK.

boomkatalog wrote: »

Does anyone know what the exact wording is? Is it 'are you homosexual?' or does it ask 'have you ever had anal, oral or vaginal sex unprotected?'

The issue can't simply be anal sex, sure then a lot of women couldn't give blood either.

a brief paraphrase:

If -
You've had anal sex with a man
or -
You've had sex with a woman who has had sex with a man, who preciously had anal sex with a man.

All this info is available on their site.

1ZRed

boomkatalog wrote: »

The issue can't simply be anal sex, sure then a lot of women couldn't give blood either.

The issue is largely anal sex because of the increase in the likelyhood of spreading HIV. Straight couples can have anal sex and still give blood.

It's hypocritical.

c_man

Skid wrote: »

If they don't take donations from Gay people (or anyone else) it is based on Medical Evidence, and the policy is intended to protect the recipients of Blood Donations.

So a man who gave a blowie to another fella once is far more risky than a straight guy who's banging all round with no protection. Right...

Millicent

MJ23 wrote: »

If i needed a transfusion and they were going to give me gay blood, id have to decline and ask for non gay blood.

I know. Wouldn't it be awful to have something terrible like a car accident and then after to discover you'd caught the ghey from a blood transfusion? :eek:

yer man!

Deleted User wrote: »

Well done, have a medal. It's not actually a medal, it's a butt-plug.

I know, I know, i'm very immature.... but I had to....

I kinda do and don't agree with the topic though.... yes all blood is screened but some things do not show up for months after and the blood may be in someone else at that stage. It's going on statistics, albeit older stats, but stats nevertheless, they're trying to exclude the demography with the greatest risk of having HIV/AIDS, as it was gay men that statistically had more instances of the disease. Data may say otherwise now but it'll still be a few years before the regulatory body is convinced, sure most of the people I know who spent time in England can't give blood either.

PC CDROM

Makes sense really.

In this day and age administering any type of contaminated blood would reek havoc. This one suing that one.

I don't blame the blood people playing it safe. Less hassle in the long run. And it is the long run.

It is a way of life these day to play it safe. We only have ourselves to blame.

As someone who lived in England for a few years in the 90s I can't give blood here. But I can in nordie land. Which I do regularly. The one donation I can make that should hopefully be used for what it was intended!

1ZRed

PC CDROM wrote: »

Makes sense really.

In this day and age administering any type of contaminated blood would reek havoc. This one suing that one.

I don't blame the blood people playing it safe. Less hassle in the long run. And it is the long run.

It is a way of life these day to play it safe. We only have ourselves to blame.

As someone who lived in England for a few years in the 90s I can't give blood here. But I can in nordie land. Which I do regularly. The one donation I can make that should hopefully be used for what it was intended!

Basing all of that on the sole fear of contaminating blood supplies would have me very worried about the accuracy of the screening process.

Giselle

Millicent wrote: »

The LGBT society aren't overreacting. AIDS rates are climbing fastest in straight people. Also, since the US sees more AIDS cases in black people (1 in 16 men,

Millicent wrote: »

We have quite a low rate of AIDS in Ireland. From a population of 4.5 million people, we have only 6,900 cases, 4,900 of those being men (though the sexuality of either group is not identified).

Millicent, I'm sorry to be pedantic here, but HIV rates and AIDS rates are not the same thing and there is nothing like 6,900 cases of AIDS in Ireland.

We have a low rate of HIV infections of about 7,000 cases and deaths from AIDS run at approx 100 a year.

The VAST majority of AIDS deaths are from old infections where the patient received no treatment, or was treated when the disease was well advanced, or from intravenous drug users who were either late getting treatment, erratic in taking it, or both.

The great majority of people in the West who are infected with HIV have a normal or almost-normal life expectancy with treatment.

Language is very important with this disease, and people need to distinguish those infected with and living normally with HIV, from those sad cases where people succumb to AIDS.

Its unhelpful to make statements about rates of AIDS that bear no relation to the rates of HIV, and this might make people more likely to stigmatise those with a HIV infection.

MJ23

Millicent wrote: »

I know. Wouldn't it be awful to have something terrible like a car accident and then after to discover you'd caught the ghey from a blood transfusion? :eek:

I didn't say that you'd catch the gay. Id just prefer to take from someone who wasn't gay.

PhlegmyMoses

The big issue is that there is a 2 week period between contracting HIV\AIDs and it showing up on a test. The other issue is that gay men have a higher incidence of those diseases than other groups.

If that two week window can be eradicated, gay men can give blood. It seems that this is an issue for a lot of younger LGBT groups, like in college, but I remember speaking to a guy from LGBT.ie and he could understand why the rule was in place and had no interest in fighting it.

Conall Cernach

Do they still have the ban on anyone who lived in the North for 2 years? I haven't donated in a few years now but that used to be on the "banned list" due to CJD.

Millicent

Giselle wrote: »

Millicent, I'm sorry to be pedantic here, but HIV rates and AIDS rates are not the same thing and there is nothing like 6,900 cases of AIDS in Ireland.

We have a low rate of HIV infections of about 7,000 cases and deaths from AIDS run at approx 100 a year.

The VAST majority of AIDS deaths are from old infections where the patient received no treatment, or was treated when the disease was well advanced, or from intravenous drug users who were either late getting treatment, erratic in taking it, or both.

The great majority of people in the West who are infected with HIV have a normal or almost-normal life expectancy with treatment.

Language is very important with this disease, and people need to distinguish those infected with and living normally with HIV, from those sad cases where people succumb to AIDS.

Its unhelpful to make statements about rates of AIDS that bear no relation to the rates of HIV, and this might make people more likely to stigmatise those with a HIV infection.

Sorry, no, you're right. Going back to edit now. Was having a brain fart when I posted. I actually meant HIV and I don't know why I typed AIDS.

PhlegmyMoses

Millicent wrote: »

The LGBT society aren't overreacting. AIDS rates are climbing fastest in straight people. Also, since the US sees more AIDS cases in black people (1 in 16 men, the CDC says :eek:), would it be fair to ban an entire race of people from donating or straight people, should their rates overtake infection rates in gay and bisexual people?

The US bans Haitians from giving blood because of the high incidence of HIV\AIDs in their community.

Millicent

MJ23 wrote: »

I didn't say that you'd catch the gay. Id just prefer to take from someone who wasn't gay.

Why, out of curiosity?

Millicent

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

The US bans Haitians from giving blood because of the high incidence of HIV\AIDs in their community.

Cheers. Did not know that. Still, they aren't banning based on race. I would think that banning based on sexuality would be the same principle, though.

1ZRed

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

The big issue is that there is a 2 week period between contracting HIV\AIDs and it showing up on a test. The other issue is that gay men have a higher incidence of those diseases than other groups.

If that two week window can be eradicated, gay men can give blood. It seems that this is an issue for a lot of younger LGBT groups, like in college, but I remember speaking to a guy from LGBT.ie and he could understand why the rule was in place and had no interest in fighting it.

It can take up to 3-6 months for the antibodies to show up in a blood test.

Edit: I'm wrong about that

Millicent

Millicent wrote: »

Why, out of curiosity?

Same reason I don't want them to touch my food unless they're wearing a rubber.

Millicent

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

The big issue is that there is a 2 week period between contracting HIV\AIDs and it showing up on a test. The other issue is that gay men have a higher incidence of those diseases than other groups.

If that two week window can be eradicated, gay men can give blood. It seems that this is an issue for a lot of younger LGBT groups, like in college, but I remember speaking to a guy from LGBT.ie and he could understand why the rule was in place and had no interest in fighting it.

Why not just ban all those who had engaged in unsafe sexual practices though? I didn't donate blood after I had any of my piercings because I knew there was a slight chance of a blood disease being passed on. I can still give blood now though. Why not apply that same principle to any sex? If you have had unprotected sex, have had an STD test and are clean, there is no reason you should be barred from giving blood, IMO.

PhlegmyMoses

1ZRed wrote: »

It can take 3-6 months for the antibodies to show up in a blood test.

It can take that long for an antibody test but it can be as little as two weeks. The average is actually 25 days. Have a read here:

http://stopaids.org/resources/possible-exposure-hiv/time-it-takes-test-positive

The RNA test is a more effective test with regards to time periods in which it can detect HIV. 9-11 days.

Millicent

Deleted User wrote: »

Same reason I don't want them to touch my food unless they're wearing a rubber.

I thanked your post because I think you're joking. :pac: At least I hope you're joking...

PC CDROM

1ZRed wrote: »

Basing all of that on the sole fear of contaminating blood supplies would have me very worried about the accuracy of the screening process.

I don't get that.

It is that fear? You think they do it because they don't like Gay people or people who had the brass neck to live and work in England for a few years?

Giselle

Deleted User wrote: »

Same reason I don't want them to touch my food unless they're wearing a rubber.

Has anyone else ever had that experience where they read a post, then know that forever more they'll just dismiss anything else they read from that poster?

Aside from mentioning that, this post has so much wrong with it that I can't even be bothered getting started on it.

Capt'n Midnight

The ban is on people who have had sex with someone who has had a particular type of sex in the last 12 months.

Women who have had sex with men who have had sex with other men have to wait a year too.

Also the rules do change.



And the IBTS has to be paranoid about blood safety because of the unforgivable scandals due to cost cutting in the past :mad:

http://www.haemophilia.ie/content.php?id=2

As a direct result of infection with HIV and Hepatitis C, some 93 people with haemophilia have died.

IIRC at one point half the haemophilics here were infected :mad:

And there are also the pregnant women who got Hepatitis C from Anti-D

1ZRed

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

It can take that long for an antibody test but it can be as little as two weeks. The average is actually 25 days. Have a read here:

http://stopaids.org/resources/possible-exposure-hiv/time-it-takes-test-positive

The RNA test is a more effective test with regards to time periods in which it can detect HIV. 9-11 days.

Yeah, you're completely right there. I thought you meant an antibody test. I was about to post that it can a month for it to be detectable but since it's been a while since I read into HIV and screening I didn't bother because I wasn't sure of how accurate that'd be.

Ellis Dee

There are quite a few countries that have indefinite bans on accepting blood donations from gay men. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy

Finland is one such country, and the matter has been ruled on by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who is the supreme overseer of legality. He made an interesting distinction between sexual behaviour and sexual orientation.

"In Finland the Parliamentary Ombudsman launched an investigation on the possible unconstitutionality of the lifetime ban in January 2006. In June 2008 it was concluded that the ban was not unlawful in Finland as it is based on "appropriately reasoned epidemiological information" and because it is related to sexual behaviour rather than sexual orientation. The Ombudsman added that people over the age of 65 and people who lived in Britain during the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) outbreak are also screened out during blood donor interviews."

MJ23

Millicent wrote: »

Why, out of curiosity?

Id just prefer to take the blood from a non gay. Would you not be the same?

Millicent

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The ban is on people who have had sex with someone who has had a particular type of sex in the last 12 months.

Women who have had sex with men who have had sex with other men have to wait a year too.

Also the rules do change.



And the IBTS has to be paranoid about blood safety because of the unforgivable scandals due to cost cutting in the past :mad:

http://www.haemophilia.ie/content.php?id=2IIRC at one point half the haemophilics here were infected :mad:

And there are also the pregnant women who got Hepatitis C from Anti-D

Yes, but the problem is, they're insinuating only gay men get HIV or AIDS. Are you sure it's after 12 months? I thought that was a UK law, not the Irish one.

Millicent

MJ23 wrote: »

Id just prefer to take the blood from a non gay. Would you not be the same?

Um, no. Why would I be? That doesn't answer my question at all, btw. That's just repeating your earlier answer.

PhlegmyMoses

Millicent wrote: »

Why not just ban all those who had engaged in unsafe sexual practices though? I didn't donate blood after I had any of my piercings because I knew there was a slight chance of a blood disease being passed on. I can still give blood now though. Why not apply that same principle to any sex? If you have had unprotected sex, have had an STD test and are clean, there is no reason you should be barred from giving blood, IMO.

It's about the higher incidence of the disease in certain communities. Sub-Saharan Africans cannot donate here until they are living in this country for more than 18 months. The idea is that they are no longer as at-risk as they were. Gay men are technically never not at-risk. This is offensive to gay men who are in monogamous relationships as it seems to suggest that gay men are inherently promiscuous. To the IBTS, stats are everything. I think it is important to point out that this is not a homophobic rule and that the IBTS would love to change things. This won't happen until the stats change or they can effectively test within a day or two of somebody contracting HIV.