Blood donation and Gay men ??

Dubhlinner

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Then why can't gay men who haven't had sex for 18 months be allowed to give blood?

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Please read the thread. It'll answer all of these questions.

I actually think this is a good question from neewbie. It seems a bit inconsistant to me. can't really see why people from these countries aren't banned for life

i don't think msm should be allowed donate after 18 months. just the people from high risk countries shouldn't be allowed either. I doubt they're contributing much to the blood supply anyway

up for anything

Dubhlinner wrote: »

People who originate from countries with high malaria risk appear to have evolved a gene that gives them defence against malaria. A downside to this gene is it increases your risk of catching HIV which some people believe is the reason for especially high levels in subsaharan africa/thailand etc.

Is there a link to information on this?

PhlegmyMoses

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Try to comprehend what I'm saying.

I have read the thread. AIDS / HIV stays, it doesn't just go away.

A person from Sub-Saharan Africa is at a much higher risk of AIDS than a gay man.

If a person from Sub-Saharan Africa can donate blood, then why can't a gay man.

Living in Ireland for 18 months won't make your AIDS dissapear.

It's not that I'm not comprehending it. I am just presenting you with the facts about the issue, considering that you didn't seem to know any of them, despite claiming that you have read what other people have taken the time to post.

They are at risk while they live in Africa. The IBTS believe that this risk is eradicated once they have lived in Ireland for over 18 months. They no longer live in a country where HIV is as prevalent so they are no longer considered at risk.

Gay men are considered to be always at risk because they present with the highest number of new HIV rates in Ireland year-in, year-out and because they are having sex with a high-risk group. This may discriminate against those in a monogamous relationship, but the IBTS does not have the resources to vet people in this way and check their stories. A blanket ban has to suffice. This is not just Ireland btw. it has been through the courts in many countries and has rarely been overturned.

It takes 9-11 days for an RNS test to show a positive result. It takes at least 2 weeks for antibodies to show on a test but it is more like an average of 25 days.

I'm not trying to have a go here. I just feel that all of this has been covered in the past few pages.

Dubhlinner

up for anything wrote: »

Is there a link to information on this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7509210.stm

A gene which apparently evolved to protect people from malaria increases their vulnerability to HIV infection by 40%, say US and UK scientists.
People of African descent have a variation of the "DARC" gene which may interfere with their ability to fight HIV in its early stages.
The Cell Host and Microbe study says the gene accounts for millions of extra HIV cases in sub-Saharan Africa.

Also on another level completely those with malaria appear more likely to spread the virus

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/opinion/18mon2.html

Zab

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Then why can't gay men who haven't had sex for 18 months be allowed to give blood?

The FDA estimate that if you have a 12 month deferment then ~2.1% of donations from MSM would contain HIV. This is many times higher than the prevalence in the other donations and they would be relying on screening to stop it ending up in a transfusion. Their argument is that 2.1% by whatever the margin of error is in the testing comes out higher than the 1-in-5-million (UK, 1.5 mil in the US) chance they have at the moment.

That said, the only recent case of HIV making it through to a patient in the US was in 2008, and it was due to the infection happening just prior to the donation coupled with the donor lying about it to the clinic. The man did not identify as MSM at all, so would get past pretty much any screening system.

The UK changed to a 12 month policy last year, after an evidence based review. On the balance of evidence I believe I would support this change.

Kev_2012

I can't donate blood because I was born in England in the 80's. There is a reason for everything.

obplayer

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Then why can't gay men who haven't had sex for 18 months be allowed to give blood?

Because, to be quite blunt, people cannot be trusted to be honest about their sex lives. If you have not actually been in Africa then it makes it more dificult to have had sex with an African. Having had sex with an msm in Dublin is easier.

Annasopra

obplayer wrote: »

http://www.dublinaidsalliance.ie/index.php?page=latest-statistics

The highest proportion of new diagnoses in 2011 (42.5%) were among men who have sex with men (MSM)
Heterosexual contact accounted for 34% of new diagnoses. Among theheterosexual cases, 43% were among individuals originating from countries with generalised epidemics, 11% had a high‐risk partner or apartner known to be HIV positive and 7% had a partner originating froma country with a generalised epidemic.5.0% of new diagnoses were among Injecting Drug Users (IDUs)
And you don't 'arguments', you argue.

I'm sorry - I don't understand why you quoted me and then said all that? Does it reference a point I made?

Annasopra

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Gay men are considered to be always at risk because they present with the highest number of new HIV rates in Ireland year-in, year-out

This is not really true. The diagnoses of HIV of msm between 2000 and 2009 was not the highest. That was actually heterosexuals. I accept the point that for approximately 2.7% of the population that HIV amongst MSM is really high but what you are saying is not quite true.

http://www.hpsc.ie/hpsc/A-Z/HIVSTIs/HIVandAIDS/SurveillanceReports/

Cavehill Red

mango salsa wrote: »

This is not really true. The diagnoses of HIV of msm between 2000 and 2009 was not the highest. That was actually heterosexuals. I accept the point that for approximately 2.7% of the population that HIV amongst MSM is really high but what you are saying is not quite true.

See, it's not that it's 'really high'. It's stratospheric compared to the rest of society. If it were a case of it being double or treble the rate, there might be a case to argue discrimination, but that's not what the situation is.
To correct you, its 2.7% of MEN, not of the population, so again you have to half that to get a proportion of the total population. Let's be generous and go with the 3% of men who, according to the ESRI, had genital contact with another man in the previous five years (even though that includes mutual masturbation).
So, 1.5% of the population are MSM, yet they account for 42.5% of the new HIV infections.
That means that 98.5% of the population account for the rest, and they include junkies, prostitutes, straight sub-Saharan Africans, and people who sleep with any of the above.
Let's compare infection rates now. The 1.5% of society who are MSM are 48.5 TIMES more likely than ALL of the rest of society to be infectious. In every 200 people, only 3 are men who sleep with men. Yet those 3 account for nearly half of all the HIV cases among the 200, even though there are intravenous drug users, prostitutes, people from sub-Saharan Africa and people who sleep with all of those other groups among the other 197. Now do you see?

PhlegmyMoses

mango salsa wrote: »

This is not really true. The diagnoses of HIV of msm between 2000 and 2009 was not the highest. That was actually heterosexuals. I accept the point that for approximately 2.7% of the population that HIV amongst MSM is really high but what you are saying is not quite true.

http://www.hpsc.ie/hpsc/A-Z/HIVSTIs/HIVandAIDS/SurveillanceReports/

I see your point but feel that you're nitpicking about semantics. I, and others, have made the exact point, as you have made it, numerous times in the thread. I didn't feel it needed to be specidfied again.

Slurryface

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

Of course it is. Gay men, like it or not are far more likely to have AIDS or HIV than hetrosexuals, thats not anti gay its just a fact.
Do I want to get HIV/AIDs from a blood transfusiion...eh no...duh!

obplayer

mango salsa wrote: »

I'm sorry - I don't understand why you quoted me and then said all that? Does it reference a point I made?

I am pointing out that HIV among heterosexuals who do not have other obvious risk factors is very low, that is why they can donate but msms cannot.

Dravokivich

up for anything wrote: »

Also what am I at risk of from my Irish blood transfusion that I couldn't give blood here even if I hadn't lived in the UK?

I'm guessing the bit I scratched out doesn't really mean anything to your question? It's a bit confusing to read.

There were a lot of issues throughout the 80's and early 90's with dodgy blood being used in transfusions. A lot of scandals around Hep C and the likes.

Hannibal Smith

It's hilarious (in a sarcastic way) how this country gets away with their homophobia. What about straight men and women who sleep around? Or 'straight' married men who are in denial about their sexuality, sleep with men and then sleep with their wives?

Not to go too off topic but with mortgage applications and life assurance, straight couple aged 40 apply, they get their assurance policy no questions asked. A gay couple apply and they are automatically sent for a medical and forced to answer imposing questions about their sexuality.

So some may say its only prudent they be careful about blood donations, but I believe there is a homophobic undercurrent going on in a number facets of society that won't be addressed until people open their minds about all sexual practices.

Dravokivich

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

It's hilarious (in a sarcastic way) how this country gets away with their homophobia. What about straight men and women who sleep around? Or 'straight' married men who are in denial about their sexuality, sleep with men and then sleep with their wives?

Not to go too off topic but with mortgage applications and life assurance, straight couple aged 40 apply, they get their assurance policy no questions asked. A gay couple apply and they are automatically sent for a medical and forced to answer imposing questions about their sexuality.

So some may say its only prudent they be careful about blood donations, but I believe there is a homophobic undercurrent going on in a number facets of society that won't be addressed until people open their minds about all sexual practices.

My friend had to go through medicals for his policies when getting a mortgage. He's straight, with his girlfriend almost 13 years.

Hannibal Smith

Dravokivich wrote: »

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

It's hilarious (in a sarcastic way) how this country gets away with their homophobia. What about straight men and women who sleep around? Or 'straight' married men who are in denial about their sexuality, sleep with men and then sleep with their wives?

Not to go too off topic but with mortgage applications and life assurance, straight couple aged 40 apply, they get their assurance policy no questions asked. A gay couple apply and they are automatically sent for a medical and forced to answer imposing questions about their sexuality.

So some may say its only prudent they be careful about blood donations, but I believe there is a homophobic undercurrent going on in a number facets of society that won't be addressed until people open their minds about all sexual practices.

My friend had to go through medicals for his policies when getting a mortgage. He's straight, with his girlfriend almost 13 years.

You can be selected at random for it. Or if they've had an illness before you'll be sent. So the odd time a straight person might be called. But our gay clients were always sent for one. The women never were, interestingly enough.

Buti've never known a married couple (other than those who've had an illness) to be sent for one.

Annasopra

obplayer wrote: »

I am pointing out that HIV among heterosexuals who do not have other obvious risk factors is very low, that is why they can donate but msms cannot.

I still don't know why you quoted me when you pointed that out though! My point and your point were not linked.

Cavehill Red

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

It's hilarious (in a sarcastic way) how this country gets away with their homophobia. What about straight men and women who sleep around? Or 'straight' married men who are in denial about their sexuality, sleep with men and then sleep with their wives?

See my last post. The 1.5% of people who are men who sleep with men are responsible for 42.5% of all new HIV infections. That makes men who sleep with men nearly 50 TIMES more likely to be infections than 'straight men and women who sleep around'. In fact, it makes them much higher than 50 times more likely, since the non-MSM 98.5% of society includes other high-risk groups who are also prevented from giving blood, like drug users and prostitutes.
So basically to answer your two questions:
What about straight men and women who sleep around?
Probably up to 100 times less likely to contract HIV than men who sleep with men.
Or 'straight' married men who are in denial about their sexuality, sleep with men and then sleep with their wives?
These are men who sleep with men.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Millicent wrote: »

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).

Well that may be the official figure but the actually figure is probably to something like 20,000 or maybe even 50,000. Lots of HIV cases go unreported because lots of people still don't get tested and/or some people might fear being stigmatised by having the virus.

Cavehill Red

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Well that may be the official figure but the actually figure is probably to something like 20,000 or maybe even 50,000. Lots of HIV cases go unreported because lots of people still don't get tested and/or some people might fear being stigmatised by having the virus.

Evidence for these figures?

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Evidence for these figures?

Eh, of course not. Did you not get the point of my last post? Official figures are around 6,000 people or there about who have HIV in Ireland.

Of course the actual number is likely to be higher because (A) lots of people don't get tested regularly and don't know if they have it and (B) lots of people won't state publicly (or even on a survey) that they have HIV because they don't want to be stigmatized.

Because of this, the official figure is going to be lower than the actual figure. You won't be able to get an absolutely accurate figure unless you literally went around to everyone in the country and took blood samples from them. The figures I cited in my previous post were guestimates, pure and simple, I think I already made that clear. However, I think it's common sense that the actual figure is going to be higher than 6,000 people.

Cavehill Red

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

I think it's common sense that the actual figure is going to be higher than 6,000 people.

I think that's common sense too. I don't think it's common sense to claim there's ten times that many infected people in Ireland without a scrap of evidence however.
Also, your point B is irrelevant, except in cases where people are diagnosed abroad, and return abroad regularly for their treatment. It doesn't matter to the official statistics whether someone states publicly or on a survey their status, since the statistics are obtained from doctors.

Knasher

obplayer wrote: »

Because, to be quite blunt, people cannot be trusted to be honest about their sex lives.

We already trust people to be honest about their sex lives. We not only trust that people will be honest (both usually straight men and gay men when asked if they have ever had sex with another man) but we also trust that their partners are honest with them, as there are questions on the form pertaining to that as well. So it seems to me a double standard that we can trust people to be honest on that question, but we can't trust gay men to be honest about having a sexual partner within a time frame. Especially if gay men are anything like straight men and are more likely to over-inflate how often they have sex, rather than under-inflate it.

That being said, if the statistics support a ban, then I do too. But I'd have a very hard time believing that a gay man in a monogamous relationship for more than a year is at any greater (or even equal) risk than a straight man who is playing the field. Seeing as one is banned and the other isn't, I simply can't accept that the ban is based on statistics alone.

Hannibal Smith

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

It's hilarious (in a sarcastic way) how this country gets away with their homophobia. What about straight men and women who sleep around? Or 'straight' married men who are in denial about their sexuality, sleep with men and then sleep with their wives?

See my last post. The 1.5% of people who are men who sleep with men are responsible for 42.5% of all new HIV infections. That makes men who sleep with men nearly 50 TIMES more likely to be infections than 'straight men and women who sleep around'. In fact, it makes them much higher than 50 times more likely, since the non-MSM 98.5% of society includes other high-risk groups who are also prevented from giving blood, like drug users and prostitutes.
So basically to answer your two questions:
What about straight men and women who sleep around?
Probably up to 100 times less likely to contract HIV than men who sleep with men.
Or 'straight' married men who are in denial about their sexuality, sleep with men and then sleep with their wives?
These are men who sleep with men.

This post is exactly what I mean. In the real world there are married men who sleep with other men and go back to their wives. So if you're going to black list gay men, then you black list everyone because you have no idea what they've been up to or who they've been with.

Edit: just deleted the last line after looking at the DAA site

Cavehill Red

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

This post is exactly what I mean. In the real world there are married men who sleep with other men and go back to their wives. So if you're going to black list gay men, then you black list everyone because you have no idea what they've been up to or who they've been with.

Edit: just deleted the last line after looking at the DAA site

In the 'real world' no one's wives are looking over their shoulders when they fill in the form, so if they've slept with men, they're free to state so without exposing themselves.
Also in the 'real world', one assumes that no one wants to actively infect other people via blood transfusion, as happened during the Hep C crisis and the Haemophilia crisis, so to the extent that one takes people at their word it is to the extent that one assumes they don't want to put anonymous sick others at unnecessary risk.
No, you don't know what everyone's been up to. But you do know that straight people and lesbians are 50 times less likely to carry the HIV virus. You hope that people who have put themselves at greater risk, by being men who sleep with men, or intravenously injecting drugs, or sleeping with prostitutes, or being prostitutes, own up to it. What, after all, is their motivation to pass infection to people they don't know who are already ill?

B.A._Baracus

Stop me if I am wrong here .... but shouldnt all peoples blood, regardless of sexual orientation, be accepted. But more importantly be SCREENED before used?

As another person said in the thread... yeah in the 80s you could see why homosexal men werent allowed give blood. Reality is today you don't know who is truly clean or not.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Stop me if I am wrong here .... but shouldnt all peoples blood, regardless of sexual orientation, be accepted. But more importantly be SCREENED before used?

As another person said in the thread... yeah in the 80s you could see why homosexal men werent allowed give blood. Reality is today you don't know who is truly clean or not.

The ban is an additional precaution because sometimes you can get false negatives in HIV screening. It makes the system more fool proof if you also consider statistics. You can argue it's homophobic, it certainly is ruthless, but the IBTS also ban people who lived in or visited the UK or other countries before a certain date so maybe you could also view it as Anglophobic or even racist.

Dubhlinner

Its also another safeguard against human error. These things happen so best to keep blood from high risk groups out of the system altogether

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Its also another safeguard against human error. These things happen so best to keep blood from high risk groups out of the system altogether

Exactly, sometimes science is ruthless and it has to be. We can't just get tied up in emotion here. If getting a HIV test was 100% fool proof and/or there were proven statistics that the rate of HIV cases in straight people was equal to that of gay people then you can argue against the ban. Phobias, like homophobia, are irrational fears. Therefore, you can't argue that the ban is homophobic as the basis for the ban is not an irrational fear.

Jimoslimos

It's been said several times on the thread so just chipping in my 2c.

The ban isn't homophobic. I don't recall the form asking if the donor was gay. It would be like me referring to gay man or lesbian woman as heterosexual if they experimented with a member of the opposite sex when younger.

It is simply the most practical way of excluding the most amount of high risk individuals. You could also argue that someone who has slept once with a prostitute and practised safe sex on that one occasion is at lower risk than someone who pulls a different girl/guy every weekend and has unprotected sex. As a group however, prostitutes and men who sleep with them are higher risk.

It's a numbers game, and right now the stats aren't in favour of MSM. You don't have an inherent human right for your blood to be accepted.