Blood donation and Gay men ??

Giselle

MJ23 wrote: »

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

I'd prefer blood from someone with no infectious diseases.

I couldn't care less if they were gay, straight, from Haiti, or even Irish!

1ZRed

Millicent wrote: »

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.

I don't think they're insinuating gay men get HIV/AIDS but I think their regulations are prejudiced and inequal when straight people can also engage in anal sex and also could've had sex with an MSM man without knowing his status.

PhlegmyMoses

Millicent wrote: »

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.

Gay men are banned for life from giving blood if they have ever had sex with another man. This is where the behaviour rather than orientation idea comes from. If you are gay but never had sex before, you could donate.

Millicent

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

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.

But anyone who has sex is at risk, not just gay men. I'm going to change this sentence: Gay men are technically never not at-risk to Sexually active people are technically never not at-risk, because that's more accurate.

Also, given the IBTS's statement last year, it doesn't seem like they're keen to change anything, just convinced that all gay men engage in inherently unsafe sexuality practices. That is insulting to sexually cautious gay men.

Millicent

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Gay men are banned for life from giving blood if they have ever had sex with another man. This is where the behaviour rather than orientation idea comes from. If you are gay but never had sex before, you could donate.

So "hate the sin not the sinner" sort of reasoning then? That makes no sense at all. That makes no allowances for men who have had clean HIV tests, who have never engaged in unsafe sexual practices, who never take risks with their sexual health. That is deeply unfair.

Millicent

1ZRed wrote: »

I don't think they're insinuating gay men get HIV/AIDS but I think their regulations are prejudiced and inequal when straight people can also engage in anal sex and also could've had sex with an MSM man without knowing his status.

That still insinuates that only gay men pass on the disease. Straight men and women do too.

PhlegmyMoses

Millicent wrote: »

But anyone who has sex is at risk, not just gay men. I'm going to change this sentence: Gay men are technically never not at-risk to Sexually active people are technically never not at-risk, because that's more accurate.

Also, given the IBTS's statement last year, it doesn't seem like they're keen to change anything, just convinced that all gay men engage in inherently unsafe sexuality practices. That is insulting to sexually cautious gay men.

This is because of stats. Their statement is the exact same as it has always been because nothing has changed. As of the end of last year:

Data from the HSE’s Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC) for the first half of the year revealed there were 152 new HIV diagnoses.

Almost 40 per cent (60 people) were men who have sex with other men and 36.6 per cent of those were aged between 15 and 29 years.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1201/breaking11.html

Madam_X

MJ23 wrote: »

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

But gay man blood would be fabulous!

Giselle

Giselle wrote: »

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.

Are you American or something?

Anyway it's hipsters who shouldn't be allowed to give blood, you just know they all went out to get AIDS when they found out it was a retrovirus.

Millicent

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This is because of stats. Their statement is the exact same as it has always been because nothing has changed. As of the end of last year:



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1201/breaking11.html

That still doesn't answer my question. Why not ban everyone who has had unsafe sex? Why just ban men who have gay sex as they are more likely (though, given the amount of gay men in this country, not massively more likely) to have HIV?

It assumes that all gay men have unsafe sex when that is not the case.

Zab

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?

Going by your own link 61% of new HIV cases in 2009 were via MSM while they estimate that the group only accounts for 2% of the population. Blacks didn't have a patch on this with only 44% of the new cases but 14% of the population. That's more than an order of magnitude difference between them. The 1 in 16 statistic is that "At some point in their life, 1 in 16 black/African American men will receive a diagnosis of HIV". This isn't the same thing as 1 in 16 actually having HIV, and it's kind of irritatingly they don't give the same statistic for other groupings.

I had a look at whether HIV is climbing in straight people too. I don't personally see it but you can have a look yourself (data is Ireland only):
[source]

All that said, none of that necessarily means that it's statistically "too dangerous" to take blood from these men. I do think that it should be a purely statistical question though, i.e. incidence combined the risk of an infected donation actually making it to a patient. I assume we test all donations here so I'm not sure that there's any danger at all. On the other hand, if there is a realistic danger then I also don't care if feathers gets ruffled and some sort of equal rights agenda wouldn't sway me at all.

Dravokivich

Millicent wrote: »

But anyone who has sex is at risk, not just gay men. I'm going to change this sentence: Gay men are technically never not at-risk to Sexually active people are technically never not at-risk, because that's more accurate.

Also, given the IBTS's statement last year, it doesn't seem like they're keen to change anything, just convinced that all gay men engage in inherently unsafe sexuality practices. That is insulting to sexually cautious gay men.

They also exclude men who have been with prostitutes.

All they are doing is cutting out where general risks are seen to be possible or known to have occurred before.

PhlegmyMoses

Millicent wrote: »

That still doesn't answer my question. Why not ban everyone who has had unsafe sex? Why just ban men who have gay sex as they are more likely (though, given the amount of gay men in this country, not massively more likely) to have HIV?

It assumes that all gay men have unsafe sex when that is not the case.

It does assume that. But think about those stats for a second. How many gay men are in Ireland? How many heterosexual men and women are there? And yet 40% of all people diagnosed with HIV were gay men. They are a small community with an incredibly high rate of HIV. Heterosexual people having unsafe sex just isn't as risky as gay men doing it. If it was, then the IBTS would take similar action.

The IBTS really doesn't want to be turning down good blood when they are regularly down on stocks in many areas but they feel they have to. This is the main source of negative publicity for the IBTS yet they persist with this policy. As you can see from the link provided above, courts in Finland, and worldwide, have regularly erred on the side of caution and trusted the information and testimony provided by medical professionals.

Uriel.

Millicent wrote: »

That still doesn't answer my question. Why not ban everyone who has had unsafe sex? Why just ban men who have gay sex as they are more likely (though, given the amount of gay men in this country, not massively more likely) to have HIV?

It assumes that all gay men have unsafe sex when that is not the case.

If you banned everyone who has had unsafe sex, the supply of blood would likely be hammered.

It's about identifying risks and minimising them in as much as possible. It is in many respects a broad brush approach. But the bottom line is if you line up 10 men who have sex with men and 10 men who have sex only with women, the chances of at least one of the men have sex with men having HIV is far higher than of those men who only have sex with women

1ZRed

PC CDROM wrote: »

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?

Not at all. They want to be as safe as possible so they cut out what they deem to be high risk populations without putting straight people under the same regulations. Like a straight person could had sex with an MSM man and not know it, or lie about it and see themselves as straight (in the case of gay sex) yet be eligible to donate blood.

Regardless of the matter, straight people could be having unprotected anal sex and still be allowed to give blood. I'm someone who has never had unprotected anal sex with a man and can't give blood.

There are many holes in these regulations so just cutting out a "high risk" minority isn't as safe as you'd think.
If anything, there should be a high emphasis on accurate blood screening and improved methods of accurate testing instead of relying on cutting down on appeared higher risk groups.

Cavehill Red

This issue would be resolved within twelve months if the HIV infection rate among men who have sex with men fell to the same levels as the rest of society.

boomkatalog

I'd prefer blood from someone who wasn't a homophobe. Be afraid of catching the ignorance :rolleyes:

boomkatalog

boomkatalog wrote: »

I'd prefer blood from someone who wasn't a homophobe. Be afraid of catching the ignorance :rolleyes:

You can't catch opinions or attitude from donated blood products. I'm starting to think a new advertising drive about how diseases can and can't be transmitted might be needed after all.

PhlegmyMoses

boomkatalog wrote: »

I'd prefer blood from someone who wasn't a homophobe. Be afraid of catching the ignorance :rolleyes:

What has this got to do with the thread? The vast majority of people here are just discussing a complex and sensitive issue. Where is the homophobia?

boomkatalog

Referring to a particular opinion, just didn't bother quoting. Refreshing to see the majority of people speaking seriously in here though.

Madam_X

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This issue would be resolved within twelve months if the HIV infection rate among men who have sex with men fell to the same levels as the rest of society.

Thought the percentage was higher among heterosexuals?

Cavehill Red

Madam_X wrote: »

Thought the percentage was higher among heterosexuals?

There are many more heterosexuals, though. Given that 40% of new HIV infections last year were among MSM, who make up approximately 2% of the population, you can see that statistically they as a cohort are more than 30 times as likely to become infected as the heterosexual population (and that's the hetero population INCLUDING needle users and prostitutes, and those who sleep with prostitutes, all of whom are also excluded from giving blood for similar reasons of high statistical likelihood of infection.)

NegativeCreep

Couldn't you just lie? If giving blood was that important to you then surely you could just lie. Am I missing something?

Capt'n Midnight

Just a reminder that some diseases like Kuru exist.
100% fatal with an incubation time of up to 30 years.


It's rare in humans due to it's transmission method, but it shows that mad cow disease was totally preventable had anyone paid attention.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002355/

Kuru causes brain and nervous system changes similar to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Similar diseases appear in cows as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also called mad cow disease.

The main risk factor for kuru is eating human brain tissue, which can contain the infectious particles.
...
The average time from exposure to symptoms (incubation period) is 10 to 13 years, but incubation periods of 30 years or even longer have been reported.
...
Death usually occurs within 1 year after the first sign of symptoms.

1ZRed

Cavehill Red wrote: »

There are many more heterosexuals, though. Given that 40% of new HIV infections last year were among MSM, who make up approximately 2% of the population, you can see that statistically they as a cohort are more than 30 times as likely to become infected as the heterosexual population (and that's the hetero population INCLUDING needle users and prostitutes, and those who sleep with prostitutes, all of whom are also excluded from giving blood for similar reasons of high statistical likelihood of infection.)

That statistic is bull**** and inaccurate. The number of gay men hasn't been counted but it is thought to be in the range of 4-10%. 2% could only cover exclusively gay men and even then the figure is far too low. This also doesn't include men who have sex with men, who don't have to be gay or bisexual to have sex with each other.
Or society looks down on men who sleep with the same gender so men who are closeted or have had sex with other men would never or rarely admit to it. The percentage of men who have experimented with other men is much higher than anybody would think, and that's normal because men are more curious then women.
This doesn't mean that all these men had anal sex but it would mean that these figures are very inaccurate because these men would never admit to it. Until a more accurate and scientific count is made, and a lot of men still wouldn't admit to it, we won't know what the figure is. But I'll tell you confidently, it's much higher than 2%.

Capt'n Midnight

Millicent wrote: »

Yes, but the problem is, they're insinuating only gay men get HIV or AIDS.

In which case they woudn't ban anyone who has paid for or received payment for sex etc.

Are you sure it's after 12 months? I thought that was a UK law, not the Irish one.

you could be right , had thought they were reviewing it

Cavehill Red

1ZRed wrote: »

That statistic is bull**** and inaccurate. The number of gay men hasn't been counted but it is thought to be in the range of 4-10%. 2% could only cover exclusively gay men and even then the figure is far too low. This also doesn't include men who have sex with men, who don't have to be gay or bisexual to have sex with each other.
Or society looks down on men who sleep with the same gender so men who are closeted or have had sex with other men would never or rarely admit to it. The percentage of men who have experimented with other men is much higher than anybody would think, and that's normal because men are more curious then women.
This doesn't mean that all these men had anal sex but it would mean that these figures are very inaccurate because these men would never admit to it. Until a more accurate and scientific count is made, and a lot of men still wouldn't admit to it, we won't know what the figure is. But I'll tell you confidently, it's much higher than 2%.

Well, since that is the CSO and HSE's estimate for all MSM (and not just self-identifying gay men), perhaps you'd like to offer your source for alternative estimates.
But before you bother, let's remember that men who sleep with men would need to make up 80% of ALL men in Ireland for them to have a HIV infection rate on a par with the rest of society. So even if I were to accept your top makey-uppy figure of 10% (ie, one in five men sleep with other men :rolleyes: ) that would still mean that they were FOUR TIMES as likely to be infected as the rest of society, including the junkies, the prostitutes and those who sleep with prostitutes.

PhlegmyMoses

NegativeCreep wrote: »

Couldn't you just lie? If giving blood was that important to you then surely you could just lie. Am I missing something?

This is the thing. It has become an equality issue for some of the student LGBT organisations but the main LGBT organisation in Ireland rarely makes statements about it. They realise that their community is not giving them a mandate for it. Until the HIV figures come more in line with the rest of society, they can't really argue with the logic being used by the IBTS.

1ZRed

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, since that is the CSO and HSE's estimate for all MSM (and not just self-identifying gay men), perhaps you'd like to offer your source for alternative estimates.
But before you bother, let's remember that men who sleep with men would need to make up 80% of ALL men in Ireland for them to have a HIV infection rate on a par with the rest of society. So even if I were to accept your top makey-uppy figure of 10% (ie, one in five men sleep with other men :rolleyes: ) that would still mean that they were FOUR TIMES as likely to be infected as the rest of society, including the junkies, the prostitutes and those who sleep with prostitutes.

I'm not denying for a second that the rate of HIV infection isn't much higher in comparison to heterosexual.

I've heard and read that the figure of *up to* 10% used in US studies on gay studies on the population which could in principle be applied to any area. 10% would be 1 in 10, not 1 in 5.

But if you telling me that ALL the MSM people in Ireland is just 2% of the population, I'll call you dillusional. I'm gay. I've come to learn of so so many men who experiment. In fact, out of all the users of gaydar/manhunt/Grindr a huge chunk of them are highly descrete and closeted bi/curious men, whom a lot of cheat on their girlsfriends/partners (as stated and worded by them in their descriptions)
The HSE's estimate wouldn't cover these guys, because it's just an estimate and not a real world representation. I've met so many men who have experimented and so the overall figure would be much higher than 2% once self stated non heterosexual and closeted men were included. I'm not saying as high as 10%, but definetly higher than 2%.
Any man who has had anal sex and experimented once is MSM.
From my experience and people I know, as well as over on the LGBT forum where this has been discussed, that number is far too low. And this would be coming from the perceptives of gay and bi men who witness these men that live straight lives but have slept with men discretely.

Cavehill Red

1ZRed wrote: »

I'm not denying for a second that the rate of HIV infection isn't much higher in comparison to heterosexual.

I've heard and read that the figure of *up to* 10% used in US studies on gay studies on the population which could in principle be applied to any area. 10% would be 1 in 10, not 1 in 5.

Here's some news - half of society is women. Therefore, 10% of all of society would mean (slightly more than) 20% of men being gay (or MSM, rather). This is obviously ridiculous, but hey, they're your makey-uppy stats.

1ZRed wrote: »

But if you telling me that ALL the MSM people in Ireland is just 2% of the population, I'll call you dillusional.

No need to get abusive - those are the official figures used by the HSE and the CSO from their own information gathering. For the second time I'll ask - where are you getting your figures from?

1ZRed

1ZRed wrote: »

I've heard and read that the figure of *up to* 10% used in US studies on gay studies on the population which could in principle be applied to any area. 10% would be 1 in 10, not 1 in 5. .

You're confusing the stats, if 10% of men are gay then that means that 5% of the population are gay men. The 4-10% of men being gay that you mentioned represents 2-5% of the total population yet they account for 40% of new cases.

1ZRed

Deleted User wrote: »

You're confusing the stats, if 10% of men are gay then that means that 5% of the population are gay men. The 4-10% of men being gay that you mentioned represents 2-5% of the total population yet they account for 40% of new cases.

Ah, you're right there. I didn't take women into account throughout this. I was only talking about the male population only. Thanks for clearing that up.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Here's some news - half of society is women. Therefore, 10% of all of society would mean (slightly more than) 20% of men being gay (or MSM, rather). This is obviously ridiculous, but hey, they're your makey-uppy stats.

No you're not even following me. This is 10% of men only. Therefore when talking about the male population, 10% or under would be MSM. Why would you account for women when talking about the percentage of gay men amoung MEN? Last I heard, women couldn't be gay men.

As a whole MSM would account for 5% in the general population, not 20%. Buttonftw cleared that up.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No need to get abusive - those are the official figures used by the HSE and the CSO from their own information gathering. For the second time I'll ask - where are you getting your figures from?

If the HSE is talking about the general population, rather than just men only (which I'll admit I thought was what was meant) then the figure of 4%-10% I gave does add up if they state 2% of the population as a whole (men and women) are MSM. Once I go looking and find the articles I read a while ago, I'll post then no bother.

Cavehill Red

1ZRed wrote: »

Ah, you're right there. I didn't take women into account throughout this. I was only talking about the male population only. Thanks for clearing that up.

No you're not even following me. This is 10% of men only. Therefore when talking about the male population, 10% or under would be MSM. Why would you account for women when talking about the percentage of gay men amoung MEN? Last I heard, women couldn't be gay men.

You account for women because the 40% figure refers to society as a whole, and not just men. In other words, 40% of ALL new HIV infections were among the 2% of society (c.4% of men) who are MSM.

1ZRed wrote: »

If the HSE is talking about the general population, rather than just men only (which I'll admit I thought was what was meant) then the figure of 4%-10% I gave does add up if they state 2% of the population as a whole (men and women) are MSM. Once I go looking and find the articles I read a while ago, I'll post then no bother.

Feel free. But to be frank, the HSE and CSO figures are the official statistics for this country. You are not going to find more accurate statistics pertaining to Ireland than theirs.
As I said earlier, even if you found some lunatic prepared to claim that 20% of men were MSM, they'd still be FOUR TIMES as likely as the rest of the population (which includes straight junkies, female prostitutes and men who sleep with prostitutes, all of whom are extremely high risk categories themselves and all of whom are also banned from giving blood.)
Even using your highest guesstimate, MSM are EIGHT TIMES more likely than the rest of society (including all the other high risk categories) to be infectious.
I hope you're beginning to see that this is a statistical issue and not something the gay community should be getting on its high horse about, since there is no discrimination here. Two things can change this:
1. A new, inexpensive and 100% accurate method for screening for HIV in blood donations which is much quicker than anything we currently have.
2. The HIV rate among men who sleep with men comes down drastically to at least an eighth of what it is presently.
Medical research is working on no. 1, but there's no guarantee they'll crack it anytime soon. What are the gay community doing about no. 2?

Cavehill Red

efb wrote: »

I was advised "we dont know if your carrying an infection that hasn't been tested!!!" How does she know the untested sexually active hertos don't carry any known or unknown viruses???

The nurse was probably trying to spare your feelings. All blood is screened. But due to the statistical anomaly of comparatively enormous rates of HIV infection among certain groups, one of which is men who sleep with men, those groups are barred from donating because it takes too long to screen the blood for HIV, when the blood is needed earlier than the screening would take.
The risk of HIV infection among the non-MSM, non-needle using, non-prostitute, non-prostitute using majority of society is so low that they can proceed using their blood.
If it's any consolation to you, I'm barred from donating in the 26 counties due to having lived in NI during the British infected beef scandal. Incidentally, Irish people from both sides of the border are barred from donating in places like Poland and New Zealand for the same reason. It doesn't matter if you protest that you were vegetarian, nor that the infection and transmission rates of CJD are negligible compared to blood-borne HIV. Those are the rules. And they exist for the same reason the rule against MSM donating in Ireland do - because of screening technology limits and statistics.

Cavehill Red

efb wrote:

As advised I had been tested for HIV and it was clear.

You're ignoring the lagtime in relation to screening blood. If you test clear today, that means you didn't have the virus two weeks ago. You might well have contracted it since. You could say, 'But I haven't had any sex', but that would be pretty much the same as me saying 'But I didn't eat any beef during the CJD years'. The health service have no way of knowing if you're telling the truth and have to legislate accordingly.

Wompa1

I can't give blood in America because I lived in Europe between the late 80's and mid 90's. I set up a table outside to get people to sign a petition but didn't get much love.

yore

Quick ceist,

leaving aside the fact that we don't want to be spreading the ghey, is it an anti-gay thing or an anti-anal thing?

If you administered an "up the bum, no harm done" special to a classy young lady in the past, does that technically exclude you, and/or her, from donating blood?

i.e is it just the gays bitching again and looking for discrimination where it doesn't exist?

Cavehill Red

It's neither. It's an anti-high HIV risk categories thing based on statistical evidence of relative infections rates, which affects not only men who sleep with men, but also intravenous drug users, prostitutes and anyone who slept with any of the above.

bnt

Side note to Mods: please do something about the context-sensitive ads on this site. Reading this thread does not mean that I am in the market for STD Screening or Hairy Gay Men.

Gummy Panda

bnt wrote: »

Side note to Mods: please do something about the context-sensitive ads on this site. Reading this thread does not mean that I am in the market for STD Screening or Hairy Gay Men.

Become a subscriber and you're ad free

Dravokivich

bnt wrote: »

Side note to Mods: please do something about the context-sensitive ads on this site. Reading this thread does not mean that I am in the market for STD Screening or Hairy Gay Men.

Mods have nothing to do with the ads.

CruelCoin

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Become a subscriber and you're ad free

Or install Firefox and an add-on that strips ads from websites.

roadrunner16

Skid wrote: »

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.

Thats a good point but what I'm asking is the medical evidence outdated ? Is a gay man who has had protected sex with one other gay man more of a risk than say a women who had had sex with many other men ? . I dont think so just because a man has had sex with another man dosent mean his blood is no longer suitable for donations !!

CruelCoin

roadrunner16 wrote: »

Thats a good point but what I'm asking is the medical evidence outdated ? Is a gay man who has had protected sex with one other gay man more of a risk than say a women who had had sex with many other men ? . I dont think so just because a man has had sex with another man dosent mean his blood is no longer suitable for donations !!

There is statistical evidence to show that gay men have a higher likelihood of contracting and transmitting STD's. (don't ask me to dig up the figures for you, not arsed).

The gap is rapidly shrinking however, so i'd reckon the law should be changed once the gay community reaches equilibrium with the straight community on Stds. Should be inside a few years.

Roisy7

I have a really rare blood type and my mum (who is the same type) was stopped from donating blood because she lived in England in the 80s... Like most of Ireland!

So it's not just the gays... Interestingly I took the self-test on the website and homosexuality wasn't mentioned at all, I thought maybe they'd relaxed the rule?

It's total bull. AIDS isn't exclusively a gay thing....

Oh and I can't donate blood because I'm under 8 stone, even though I'm a healthy weight for my very short stature. No wonder they're crying out for donations!

rochey84

Ok I don't know if I'm "statistically" right on this or not, but there is much greater awareness of sexual health amongst the LGBT community which could explain the higher diagnosis rates, I say this based on my own experience as a gay men with predominatly straight mates, where I would be concious that I need to get STI screenings done, and I always play safe when having sex, I know of straight mates who have never been tested, and never intend to get tested but will have unprotected sex with people that have never been tested, they never even ask about sexual health but assume that because "I'm on the pill" or "I have the implant" or "She is on the pill/got the implant" so for all we know there are plenty of straight people out there with HIV which is just undetected as of yet!

Dravokivich

roadrunner16 wrote: »

Thats a good point but what I'm asking is the medical evidence outdated ? Is a gay man who has had protected sex with one other gay man more of a risk than say a women who had had sex with many other men ? . I dont think so just because a man has had sex with another man dosent mean his blood is no longer suitable for donations !!

It makes no difference between protected/unprotected.

This is the same for a lot of other things regarding sexual behaviour such as the use of prostitutes.

Every time I've gone they've always emphasised that donating shouldn't be used as a way of getting an STD check through bloods. Feckers wouldn't believe me when I told'em I hadn't ever gotten the ride.

Shenshen

roadrunner16 wrote: »

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

Outdated and homophobic.
Screen the blood before you use it and there are no issues. As you pointed out there, there is no restriction on hetero contact, no matter if protection was used. And I'm pretty sure that there are no restricitons on other high-risk groups (people who had blood transfusions before, people who are or used to be heroin addicts, etc)

Lollipops23

It's something I get irritated by every time I give blood. I completely understand why they would want to be vigilant about HIV (after the Anti D scandal in the 90s), but it's just so discriminatory to basically say "if you've had gay sex and you're a bloke, thanks but no thanks".
There's no reason whatsoever for them to assume because I'm a straight female I have a much lower chance of having AIDS or HIV. There's plenty of straight blokes out there I might have had unprotected sex with (for the record, there isn't ) that could have given me AIDS.
The bottom line is, they screen the bejesus out of the blood products before it goes near another human for a transfusion, so it doesn't matter a jot if they person donating it has had some same-sex hook ups.