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

[AliGrylls]

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.

My cousin was a hemophiliac, he had a bad transfusion and died of HIV.
I think that as screaning becomes more sophisticated the people who are not allowed to give blood will become fewer.
As an aside in the early 90's I wasn't banned from giving blood for a while because I am allergic to penicillin.

*screening. Oh how I long for an edit button.

Shite!! 'in the early 90's I WAS banned from giving blood for a while because I am allergic to penicillin.'

I often wonder if HIV is going to be a bigger problem in the heterosexual community than it has ever been because of the availability of porn to young people.

Am I right in thinking (happy to be corrected) that Friday Night activities in countries where access to contraception is limited, not likely to get you pregnant but being the riskiest sort of sex there is, may have contributed to the spread of HIV?

If so, the fact that it is increasingly being seen as the norm and something every enlightened girl should be up for is a bit worrying.

I don't know Arya you can easily get HIV the "regular" route too. In my mind, the biggest threat is to think and act as if HIV was only for certain continents and gays. Everyone should use protection when having a casual shag or unsure of partner's status and condoms should be cheaper and more available. < puts placard down>

Silverlace...I agree...I actually gave blood after receiving blood but before this ruling came in! I would like to gIve blood but can`t.

Good point Arya. And the glamourising of it in porn films - they don't show you all the precautions they are taking (enemas, lube, anal excerises etc).

"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?"

IIRC, the logic back in the 80s was that the high-risk groups could possibly be donating NOT to help others BUT to have their blood tested without actually going and asking for a blood test.

The reason for that being that insurance companies were asking if you had been Aids-tested, and if you had been, even if you were negative, premiums skyrocketed or insurance was refused. Because to have gone for testing must mean you were engaging in risky behaviour, or why go to that bother? Since all blood was tested, the fear was that people would donate and wait to be told they were HIV-positive. Except, some would be infected but still not have detectable levels of antibodies, and it would get through the testing and be given to someone. The Blood Service went so far as to publicise that if your blood tested positive, you would NOT be informed, in an attempt to prevent people donating just to be tested.

The insurance thing, I remember being a teenager in the late eighties and that advice being filtered down to me: Don't get an official test if you are worried, give blood instead . It didn't apply to me but I certainly remember it.

I also remember being very relieved in 2000 and 2007 when I was offered a test for HIV during my pregnancies. I'm not sure what would have been done information-sharing-wise with a positive result but I was glad to have HIV ruled out. Especially since fecking Strep B wasn't and I was the one who had to bring it to the attention of the medical team

My Ds is gay..

He is 17 and wants to give blood because his older brother does it and i do.

Why are his potential relationships anymore risky than those of a sexually promiscuous man/woman.

my assumption was that it wasn't to do with promiscuity, rather to do with anal sex being higher risk than vaginal sex because it causes more small tears on the inside? (but still outdated because straight couples have anal sex and not all gay men have had recent anal sex)

Testing isn't fool proof, if you have been exposed to blood bourne diseases you need to have tests months apart, a transfusion unit will only be testing that blood at one point in time so not as accurate?

Didn't know until this thread that I couldn't give blood ever again (have had a transfusion) but the reasons make sense without alarming me. I assumed I wouldn't be able to immediately after but always felt a duty to put some back into the pot. Will have to sent DH in my place instead! OH WELL! (mwah hah hah!)

I am very pleased that progress is being made in this area.

Blood donation is a cause very close to my heart and I was astounded at how many people are unable to donate.

Blood is screened before use.
Gay men who do not enage in unsafe sex do not seem more at risk of contracting HIV than hetrosexuals who engage in unsafe or safe sex.
Lots of gay men already donate and lie about their sex life because they know the blood will be screened and they want to donate and have no reason to believe that they are HIV +

Aids is NOT a gay disease.

We must make sure our screening procedures and safety protocols are in line with actual risks. They must be up to date.

Or we risk losing thousands of potential donors.

and I remember the insurance thing too, it ran into the 90s (at least anecdotally) I knew someone who'd had a very promiscious partner and felt they couldn't get tested either because she could be asked on insurance forms to declare if she'd ever put herself forward for a specific HIV test (which apparently indicated a risky lifestyle)

I was shocked when I heard about this. For a start it was archaic that homosexual men weren't allowed to donate - a throwback to the emergence of HIV and AIDS in the 80s. But if they're going to review the rule, WTF do the men have to be celibate for year? Why not just monogamous?

I very much doubt that homosexuals are any more at risk of carrying HIV than heterosexuals these days, so making different rules for them is just homophobic.

I too was rather when I read the original article. I hadn't realised gay men were banned from donating blood. I do understand why such a ban may have seemed a good idea in the 1980's when HIV was first discovered & people were still understanding the virus. However, now, in 2011 it does seems positively archaic. All blood is tested anyway & it is incredibly naive (not to mention prejudice) to think of HIV as a "gay" issue.

What became of the women who were found to be HIV resilient.

Women who were African and did not contract the virus even though they had had multiple partners?

The women who were immune to HIV?

I very much doubt that homosexuals are any more at risk of carrying HIV than heterosexuals these days, so making different rules for them is just homophobic.

Actually, you are far more likely to get HIV from anal sex than PIV sex. That's fact. There is a great book called "The Wisdom of Whores" re the whole AIDS phenomenon, and how NGO's have effectively distorted information about how HIV is spread in order to make it more palatable to major donors (particularly in the US) and how this is actually hindering prevention of transmission. It's written by an epidemiologist. Very interesting book.

In the west, you are more likely to have HIV as a homosexual man than a heterosexual (excl. IV drug users who i believe are also banned from giving blood). People who had been sexually active in SSA or people from SSA were (possibly still are) banned.

However, I agree that the previous rules didn't necessarily exclude groups at more risk than homosexual men in monogamous relationships and that not all gay men have penetrative sex anyway. I guess it's a question of whether people want to answer detailed questions about their sex lives. eg you are much more likely to get HIV if you have multiple concurrent partners than multiple consecutive ones.

HIV prevalalence is still massively higher amongst gay men than the average of the population in the UK. Of the people who were newly diagnosed with HIV last year about 45% were acquired by men having sex with men www.avert.org/uk-transmission-route.htm. If barring (roughly) 5% of the population from giving blood means you can eliminate 45% of the HIV infections from the system, then that's probably worth doing. Cutting the time of the bar from life to 12 months will enable some additional people to give blood whilst not significantly increasing the risk, since the blood tests are extremely reliable 12 months from infection.

If you bar other people in high risk groups (sex workers and their clients, people who've had sex in sub saharan africa, drug injectors) then you've not reduced the pool of donors by too much, but you've taken the HIV in your blood supply down to an acceptably minimal number, when combined with testing.

Btw, the reason anal sex is more likely to result in HIV transmission applies equally to heterosexuals having anal sex. It's purely because the anus is not designed for penetration and so more likely to sustain cuts/ abrasions during intercourse, allowing the virus to enter the blood stream.

IV drug users are banned from giving blood as are sex workers, as are people who have been sexually active in sub Saharan Africa, so those risk groups are all taken out already.

I would worry about no one.

Test the blood before it is used.

You just have to look at MN to se how anal sex is becoming ok.

Oh and I've read far too many "O FUCK I'M PG, BUT WE WERE SO CAREFUL!" threads on MN to trust the security of our blood service to other people's condom use.