MILDLY crass topic title but 'if you haven't had sex for 10 years' didn't fit.

 

ANYWAY

 

The British government is to lift the ban on gay men giving blood, ruling that a blanket ban is discriminatory and could be in breach of the Equality Act. However, lifting the ban will only apply to gay men who have not had sex for 10 years prior to donating blood.

 

The Sunday Times reports that the change in the ban will be announced by Anne Milton, the public health minister shortly.

 

While donated blood is screened for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, a small number of infected donations are missed due to the time between infection with HIV and it being detected in blood tests.

 

The Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO) found that a ban on gay men from giving blood if they had not had sex with another man for five years would increase the risk of blood supplies being contaminated by five percent. Ministers were told that this risk would halve for men who had not had gay sex for ten years.

 

It is estimated that seven per cent of sexually active gay men donate blood despite the current ban. Campaigners have long pointed out that many gay men are in monogamous relationships, practice safe sex or are celibate.

 

86,500 people in the UK have HIV. 42 per cent are gay men, 54 per cent are heterosexuals, the majority of whom are Africans according to the Terrance Higgins Trust

 

A government source told the newspaper: “A complete ban is unfair and discriminatory but we need to protect public health, so the 10-year rule is what is being considered.”

 

Gay men are prevented from donating blood in a number of countries. In New Zealand, they can donate so long as they have not had gay sex for 10 years. South Africa allows gay men to donate blood with a five year deferral

 

SABTO also examined whether there should be a lifetime ban on heterosexuals who have had sex with someone who has had sex with anyone from a part of the world where HIV is widespread. It also examined whether the supply of blood for patients of Afro-Carribean origin should be considered.

 

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/04/10/gay-b...x-for-10-years/

 

What utter bollocks. Not based on hard science (A study commissioned on this in Australia found there was no difference in risk between blood donated by someone who hadn't had sex in a year and someone who hadn't had sex ever because of the screening procedures.), does nothing to remedy the blood shortages we face, and continues to entrench the idea that gays are 'diseased' and that promiscuous unprotected heterosexual sex is safer than monogamous protected homosexual sex. And you can fucking bet the coalition's going to hold this one up as 'victory for gay rights!'.

MILDLY crass topic title but 'if you haven't had sex for 10 years' didn't fit.

 

ANYWAY

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/04/10/gay-b...x-for-10-years/

 

What utter bollocks. Not based on hard science (A study commissioned on this in Australia found there was no difference in risk between blood donated by someone who hadn't had sex in a year and someone who hadn't had sex ever because of the screening procedures.), does nothing to remedy the blood shortages we face, and continues to entrench the idea that gays are 'diseased' and that promiscuous unprotected heterosexual sex is safer than monogamous protected homosexual sex. And you can fucking bet the coalition's going to hold this one up as 'victory for gay rights!'.

Compared with the record of previous Tory governments it will be :lol:

I think I find this idea MORE offensive than not being able to donate blood at all.

 

I've been in a monogamous relationship for the past eight years and have been tested for HIV, there really is no reason why I should not be able to donate blood and it's just ridiculous that they would rather someone die than take a risk with someone so clearly likely to be riddled with disease as I, I'd FAR rather opt for the safe option of blood from some straight guy who's been having weekly one night stands for the past decade and his self cleansing PURE blood.

I'd FAR rather opt for the safe option of blood from some straight guy who's been having weekly one night stands for the past decade and his self cleansing PURE blood.

 

This is what I don't get, how are THEY allowed to donate blood? Can't believe things like this still go on in this day and age, not that it surprises me, but there definitely should be more of a fight to change this situation, especially since blood banks keep complaining that there is lack of blood.

 

Tbh, I didn't realise until I read in the paper this morning that gay people weren't allowed to donate blood as it is. I'm surprised that it's legal to ban them. Surely they check for HIV before straight guys donate blood anyway?

Tbh, I didn't realise until I read in the paper this morning that gay people weren't allowed to donate blood as it is. I'm surprised that it's legal to ban them. Surely they check for HIV before straight guys donate blood anyway?

Indeed. It's based entirely around small minded bigotry - you even had the head of the Blood Authority calling gays 'evil' in 2001.

I also didn't know that it was illegal, seems bizarre. And this new 'lift' is pretty much pointless :huh:

A lot of blood donors do so via their workplace. How many openly gay men are suddenly going to start giving blood, thus advertising to their colleagues that they haven't had sex for ten years?

 

It was made illegal at the time of the initial panic over Aids and the ban has remained ever since despite all the evidence that it isn't required.

I've never donated blood, but can't a gay man simply lie that he's not gay and donate? If so, it pretty much makes this whole ridiculous banning even more unecessary

I also didn't know that it was illegal, seems bizarre. And this new 'lift' is pretty much pointless :huh:

 

Exactly what I was going to say. It is just pointless.

I never knew they couldn't give blood. Im f***ing appalled they can't. Explains why there is an anal sex question on the form you have to fill out.

Edited April 11, 201114 yr by Jam.

There's other restrictions for giving blood that I think are unneccesary. For example, if you've had a blood transfusion you're not allowed to give blood. I think the UK's the only country to have that restriction, I know in America you can.

 

Also, if you've been outside of the country for a certain period of time you can't give blood either. I'm a regular blood donor, but when I get back I probably won't be allowed to donate blood for several years due to being in America. And I wasn't allowed to give blood whilst I've been here, apparantly because they're scared of someone catching 'mad cow' disease. I haven't been anywhere near cattle since I went to Streamvale Farm when I was in primary school, so there's no danger of me having it.

I've never donated blood, but can't a gay man simply lie that he's not gay and donate? If so, it pretty much makes this whole ridiculous banning even more unecessary

Absolutely, you could just lie.

 

I can honestly say that I have never been so embarrassed in my life as when I went to give blood and was turned away. It never even crossed my mind that I wouldn't be able to as I was fit and healthy, I had to admit it to my friends at the time as well as I was the only one who didn't come back out with a needle mark. I didn't even get a polo mint. :(

 

My parents and brother had to stop giving because they'd spent more than three months in Africa (or something like that) and there was a theoretical risk of them having undiagnosed Malaria. Didn't bother my parents that much, because they were on the brink of being too old, but it does seem ridiculous.

 

I think the concern is that an HIV test will come up negative if taken in the first three months after the person has contracted it, so they don't want to rely on the screening immediately after the donation is given. I think it's fair that they want to restrict higher risk individuals, and for practical reasons, that might sometimes involve crude, blanket decisions, but they could do a lot better than they do now.

 

They could ask that people have had no new sexual partners in the previous six months if they don't trust people to have used condoms properly, or think they are effective enough.

This raises a silly question I have always wondered ...

 

... don't they actually test the blood that people give before injecting it to patients?

I mean, surely they don't base the whole thing on what people are willing to say on their sexual life and stuff?

Some straight man can have AIDS without knowing it for example and then give blood. Won't it be tested??

I went to give blood yesterday and in the leaflet it says all blood is tested before being given to patients, yes.

BUT there is a window of 3 months between contracting HIV and it showing in the bloodstream, which is why you are recommended to wait 3 months between possible infection date and getting a HIV test.

BUT there is a window of 3 months between contracting HIV and it showing in the bloodstream, which is why you are recommended to wait 3 months between possible infection date and getting a HIV test.

 

But would a guy who'd had a one-night stand with a woman in the previous 3 months be barred from giving blood?

But would a guy who'd had a one-night stand with a woman in the previous 3 months be barred from giving blood?

I've never given blood so I don't know, but they should be.