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.

Kerry - I think they think the test is 100% BUT I also don't personally have an issue with eliminating higher risk groups from the pool. It's just common sense (belt and braces approach)

I mean, most sex workers aren't HIV positive but they are far more likely to be than an average person.

The test is believed to be 100% but only after 6months (ish) from the date of original infection, hence all the time limits.

FWIW, my understanding is that it's better all round - if you've got the luxury of time - to have your own blood taken in advance and then given back to you. Not sure how all that works, though. Or you can take blood given by your dp or another relative, a bit like a kidney, as long as it matches.

Gay men are not the biggest risk imo

Mean fuckers are the biggest risk.

In New Zealand, you can't give blood if you have been in the UK, France or Ireland for longer than a 6 month period between 1980 and 1996. That criteria alone means many people can't donate

Yeah, that's a BSE thing I think. The issue is that at present there's no reliable blood test for CJD. There's a new test being developed but it's still only 75% accurate and has the twin issues of false positives and missing positives, so it's a while off being able to be used.

"WTF do the men have to be celibate for year? Why not just monogamous?"

Because even if you know you've been monogamous, you can't be sure your partner has.

I am going to donate on Friday for the first time in five years. I was living in countries that considered blood products from UK nationals to be tainted with Vcjd.
It seems that the UK will happily accept me having lived in the flesh pot of Asia, but the Europeans are more concerned about mad cow disease. Absolutely bonkers.

I should add, gay men lieing is not anecdotal. Two friends who are married and have been for a number of years, deny each other when they donate blood. They have been with each other for over 20 years.

Thanks comixminx - will have another go

I'm South African and was told I can't donate blood because of the HIV risk. I told them I'd had two HIV tests done recently -one because of pregnancy and one for insurance purposes- and would be happy to show them proof of results but was refused anyway.

I can understand that they want to minimise risk but I do think a bit of sensibility should come into it. The idea that gay couples in long term monogomous relationships would be automatically disqualified is ridiculous.

My blood was turned down in Belgium (I used to live there and had previously been donating blood in the UK and wanted to carry on) because of the CJD risk. This is despite the fact that I was vegetarian throughout the mad cow period. And they had had their own cases of mad cow disease in Belgium anyway (although far fewer than the UK).

Whatever happened to CJD anyway?

I think the ban on gay men giving blood is just a numbers game. I just had a quick look to see if I could find stats to compare homo- and heterosexual rates of infection. I came across this article applying to the US rather than UK but it indicates that over there the rate of infection is 50 times greater in the homosexual community.

www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/aug/09082609

i have a gay friend who is hiv+ and has unprotected sex with men who dont know. i dont think it tells you anything about gay men but it does say that denial is a very powerful phenomnenon.

the only way to have noone lying is to either to ask noone.

I had a good friend who died from being given infected blood products in the 80s. he became an advocate for safe blood. I am gay and it took long discussions for him to convince me the ban on gay men donating was right. his argument: that HIV, hepatitis are what we know about today. what about the next virus we don't know about? that will be passed at greater frequency amongst individuals who have the kind of sex which favours virus transmission and needle sharers. therefore, ban people who participate in such activities. and just because one person in a relationship believes it to be monogomous, doesn't mean the other person isn't lying.

of course, there always going to be options for where to draw the risk line. but whilst there is enough blood available, the risk of offending or even discriminating against gay men etc is not as bad as the risk of killing those who depend on donated blood products.

the one year without gay sex sounds like a good compromise to me if it is needed to increase the blood supply.

I agree with the lifting of the ban, but I think you need to realise it isn't just men who are discriminated against. If you are a woman who has had sex with a man who has had sex with a man you can't donate for a year. What if you have a bi partner who had relationships with men before you? It's quite hard to control I think and a lot is based on good will.

TheReal haven't people been prosecuted for that? Somtimes someone in denial needs a rocket up their arse and a pointing towards the law here

O Hannah absolutely

the basis of it all is bizarre

'you annot give blood if in the past year you have had unprotected sex with a new partner without a condom (or your partner has in addition to you)'

simple and a lot less stigmatising

Maybe I'm being dim but, if you can't donate if you've had a transfusion (which I have) because of risk, surely they shouldn't be giving you that blood in the first place?

Isn't it because very little was known about cjd and transmission sooketh?
and for many people they would not be alive at all without blood, so not being able tos creen for CJD menas a tiny risk comapred to certain death

I believe the year of abstinence was considred because of the fluctuations in viral load and the association with the potential for transmission and detection
It takes at least 6 weeks from first exposure until detection and infection will not always take place on first exposure depending on the viral load of the infected partner and type of intercourse

It's ridiculous.

The most common way that HIV is transmitted is through vaginal intercourse.

I agree with Peachy - no blood giving if you've had unprotected sex in the last year - regardless of gender.

'i have a gay friend who is hiv+ and has unprotected sex with men who dont know. i dont think it tells you anything about gay men but it does say that denial is a very powerful phenomnenon'

WTF? How could you be friends with someone who does that? He could end up in prison for knowingly infecting someone.