Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Just read in the times that gay men have "won" the right to donate blood...

149 replies

AliGrylls · 10/09/2011 20:37

It was yesterday's newspaper and I have tried to find a link to the article online but for some reason can't find it. Anyway, apparently gay men have never been able to donate blood because of the risk of HIV and hepatitis - until now. This is going to be replaced by a new rule which is that they have to have been celibate for a year. Does this seem archaic to anyone?

What if, for example, there is a gay man who has been in a monogamous relationship for 12 years. Also, taking into account the fact that the sort of person that chooses to give blood is most likely going to be the sort of person who is honest. Should the rule be that it was subject to an up to date blood test for everyone?

DH and I were just discussing and he did point out to me that people do lie and there is a risk that someone could pass it on. Am I being unreasonable or naive?

Let's liven up mumsnet with a good discussion about this.

OP posts:
woowa · 10/09/2011 21:08

But who decides how many sexual partners is promiscuous? To some people, more than one ever would be too many, to others, 15 in a year would be normal, or more. What's the definition?

and oddboots, thanks for putting properly what I failed to do!!

Peachy · 10/09/2011 21:10

Well woowa one a decade isn't

Surely it would be easy to say you need a year out if you have had say 3 aprtners within a year? And apply that to everybody

Silverlace · 10/09/2011 21:11

AliGrylls I don't think there is anything wrong with me, just that niggling feeling that if they won't have my blood because I have received some is there a possibility that there is something lurking that cannot be detected that I might have been given in the donation.

When I agreed to receiving blood I was on my own in high dependency after giving birth. The nurse muttered something about "risks" but to be honest I wasn't really bothered, I just wanted to feel better.

cantpooinpeace · 10/09/2011 21:11

All high risk groups are excluded.

DialMforMummy · 10/09/2011 21:12

Trouble is, it only tales one partner. So it's a bit useless to ask "how many did you have?".

AgentZigzag · 10/09/2011 21:14

What is it that makes you think blood donors are more likely to be all round good eggs Ali?

Not that they're not of course Grin

But including everyone who gave anything to charity or did a selfless act in the group, proves you can be altruistic and dishonest at the same time.

Bearing in mind that even saying 'I love that coat on you' when you think it looks like a bag o' tatties would be classed as dishonest.

DialMforMummy · 10/09/2011 21:16

In fact, if you had to rely on people's honesty a good question to ask would be "do you use condoms every time you have sex?".

And if you have unprotected sex, did you have yourself and your partner tested no earlier than 3 months after this (exclusive) relationship started?

WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeGoes · 10/09/2011 21:18

Recipient safety is overwhelmingly more important than discrimination though, there are many people who have to have ongoing frequent transfusions because of chronic conditions as well as those who receive it once as a result of for example an accident, the risk for them is multiplied over and over and over. The NBS will have more data than I could possibly ever imagine for deciding who can and cannot donate and at least they do review it regularly, which gives me more faith in the system.

sleepychunky · 10/09/2011 21:19

umm, I've recently given blood for the 35th time and have never had to answer the question "How many sexual partners have you had?" - it's never been on the form afaik.
Am v. pleased that they have relaxed the rules but still think it's silly as all my gay friends want to give blood but because they're sexually active (though monogamous), even though they are all HIV neg and practise safe sex every time they still can't. Not sure that would apply to every heterosexual person giving blood...

Original poster
AliGrylls · 10/09/2011 21:19

I always assume that if people like to do nice things for others it is a sign they are nice people. But maybe you are right.

I think that question "have you had sex with a man who has had sex with another man", is actually quite bizarre.

OP posts:
AgentZigzag · 10/09/2011 21:20

Actually, maybe I can see what you mean Ali.

Are you saying that the donors are doing something for someone else, so why would they lie and put the people they want to help at risk?

There'd be no reason for them to lie because they wouldn't benefit from it.

AgentZigzag · 10/09/2011 21:21

Hehe, x-posts.

No, you're right Grin

Original poster
AliGrylls · 10/09/2011 21:29

You have got my point completely agentzigzag Smile.

OP posts:
Birdsgottafly · 10/09/2011 21:29

The transfusion rule is in force because of CJD.

At one time gay men were thought of as being a high risk group, but the statisics have now changed, with the travel to and from countries were there are large numbers of hetrosexuals and bisexuals with HIV and Hepatitis.

The virus usually takes at least three months to show or develop and it can be upto one year. Blood is screened in the UK for HIV, these rules just try to make it safer, but some of the rules were discriminatory.

When you look at the rates for people living with HIV and not knowing about it it make sense. People aren't taking onboard the need for safe sex.

People can feel pressurised into giving blood if they work for a large company and they have set up a van in the car park. Considering not all gay men are 'out' the rule is a very stupid one.

Original poster
AliGrylls · 10/09/2011 21:35

birds, I would say that you have made it a little clearer. I can see where the rule comes from.

OP posts:
BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 10/09/2011 21:37

But still, surely two gay men in a monogamous relationship lasting over a year are no more at risk of having HIV/hep than two straight people in a relationship thats lasted over a year? So they shouldnt have to be celibate?

Hullygully · 10/09/2011 21:38

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 10/09/2011 21:39

So my point being, if they've changed the rule now so that gay men can give blood, surely two gay men who only have sex with each other for a year are no more risky than anyone else?

AryaStark · 10/09/2011 21:43

My DD receives blood-products several times a year and I must confess to a bit of an moment. I know all the logical arguments and am ashamed but there it is Blush

My head says that this has not gone far enough and that gay men in a relationship should also be allowed to donate because as been pointed out; anyone can lie, regardless of sexual orientation.

But then again Birds makes a good point about corporate pressure and the right to privacy.

I do enjoy a lively and "good debate" but I might have to bow out personally after having posted this because it isn't abstract for me, you see. Well, ultimately for my daughter, but you know what I mean. I suppose I am trying to say that perhaps people might consider not just giving blood (and I so wish I was in a position to be able to do that) but also if you had vulnerable DC having to receive it.

AryaStark · 10/09/2011 21:49

Oh, forgot to say, if I met DH years ago and he had had a homosexual past I would have reservations about having unprotected sex and conceiving a child with him. But I'd have reassurance if I wanted to go ahead with that in the form of a recent test result for HIV. I'm sure that most people would prefer several of them, and this is quite possible.

People being given donated blood have no such reassurances.

DialMforMummy · 10/09/2011 21:52

Beyondthelimit I guess they can't believe two gay men in a relationship CAN be faithful....
I can understand why people would be worried because clearly the gay population is more at risk than the heterosexual pop both because of sexual practices and promiscuity . However, when it comes to blood donation, there is a strict screening in place and since blood can be tested I really can't see any reason why gay men can not be allowed to donate blood.
Could it be because of storage and disposal costs?

Gemjar · 10/09/2011 21:53

Can I ask, does anyone know if Anti D as a blood product counts as receiving blood and therefore rules me out of donating?

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 10/09/2011 21:54

Gem I saw on a different thread recently that it does...

SmilingandWaving · 10/09/2011 21:54

Hully are you for real? And WTF is a 'homopaedophiliac'?

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 10/09/2011 21:55

(thread was about anyone who has rec'd blood products not being able to donate breastmilk)

Swipe left for the next trending thread