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.

Pfft do some sums! If the number of transmissions via heterosexual and homosexual intercourse are roughly equal (as they are in the UK) and MSM make up 5% of the population then that makes them (very very crudely speaking) 18 times more likely than exclusive heterosexuals to carry HIV. And most of the heterosexual transmission is traceable to sub-Saharan Africa or prostitution, so should also be caught by the bars.

Pfft that would exclude a huge proportion of the adult population. so you have marginally safer blood but at the cost of not having enough blood. not very smart.

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

Doesn't work because that eliminates a large proportion of people who are married or who are in a LT monogamous relationship because most of them probably don't use condoms.

If you limit it to a new partner, then you have the "you've been monogamous, but have they?" issue.

"flimflammery Sun 11-Sep-11 05:15:03"
" "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."

But surely that applies equally to heterosexual relationships and would mean that NOONE who was sexually active, even if they've been married for 40 years could give blood You may have been married to your husband that long, but you cannot 100% guarantee that he hasnt been off sleeping with men?!

Yes, but it's not that likely, and they can only deal in generalities.

The bottom line (no pun intended) is that anal sex is more likely to result in transmission of HIV due to basic physiology.

To get HIV from sex with an infected man, the virus has to pass into your bloodstream, so you have to have an abrasion in your vagina or anus. It's much more likely to occur in the anus because the anus is not designed to have a penis put up it and doesn't have natural lubrication, whereas the vagina is and does.

One big problem in SSA was (possibly still is- I read this article 10 yrs ago or so) a common preference for "dry sex" with women, where women used herbs to reduce vaginal lubrication. This can also result in higher incidences of abrasions/tearing and higher HIV transmission between heterosexuals.

Should they also eliminate heteros who engage in a lot of bum sex? Possibly, but there would probably be a low honesty rate if that was a question on the form.

TheBride it ws unprotected sex with a new partner (and your partner has not also)

so not married poeple at all, and beyond the level of what is know to a partner then there is nothing more can be done: anyone can fall into the group of not knowing everything after all.

Ultimately, they are relying on people to be honest. Some people are. Some people won't be.

They are screening all the blood anyway, BUT, they are also trying to eliminate certain high risk groups from the sample in case soemthing goes wrong with the screening.

Anyone could get HIV (arguably) but certain lifestyles carry a higher risk than others.

eg a 2007 study discovered 22-30% of MSM in London, Brighton and Manchester had had unprotected anal sex with a partner of different or unknown HIV status from themselves, in the previous year. I would doubt that that would be replicated in the heterosexual community.

I'm in Ireland, but I can never give blood because I lived in the UK for more than one year between 1980 and 1996!

Some of the rules are a bit silly.
I can't give blood now because I've had a transfusion - but when I wanted to give blood before that I wasn't allowed because I'd had a needlestick injury in the last year. Fair enough you might think... except that as a result of that needlestick I had negative HIV /Hep B screening as did the person whose blood had contaminated the needle. And there's a lot less chance of transmission via needlestick injury (through a glove as well!) than via sexual intercourse. So it would have been fine for me to have plenty of unprotected heterosexual intercourse in that year - but the needlestick injury - oh no....
However, I do think blood products are relatively risky (i.e. tiny risk but still there) - we can screen for infections we can detect but not those we can't detect, CJD included. Transfusion saved my life and I am extremely grateful to blood donors - but I wouldn't have accepted a transfusion in a less critical situation.

This article says that vaginal intercourse is the most common way to transmit the virus

Yes Pfft, "in much of the world" but not necessarily in the UK (or the US for that matter.

A very limited proportion of infections in England are traceable to needle sharing - does that mean that heroin addicts should be allowed to donate? Because you haven't taken on board the point that if a very small percentage of the population represent a large percentage of the people with infections then it makes sense to exclude them from donation - whether they be recipients of donations, people who've worked in Kenya, or steroid abusers.

I think that realistically, all these restrictions rely on people telling the truth.

And the only reliable way, is to keep the blood and test it.

I think that if someone's blood is clean and healthy, then they should be able to donate.

Vaginal sex may be the most common way that the virus is transmitted, but that is because it's what most people do! And women are particularly vulnerable. Men, gay or straight who have sex with an infected woman, well, physiologically, she is at risk because of the surface area.. The male opening is tiny and let's face it, nothing is going up that. Men having sex with women= almost zero risk for the man.

Look at the stats for promiscuous gay men, intravenous drug-users, and sex workers. They will be very high per percentage of the peer group yet might be eclipsed by the number of people who have contracted the virus via vaginal sex.

The partners who HAVE contracted the virus may well NOT be sex-workers, but may be married / in a relationship to a man who secretly or openly uses prostitutes; not IV drug-users but may be in a relationship with one, not promiscuous, but may have a partner who is.

they don't think gay men in a "monogomous" relationship , can keep it monogamous - simple as that.

mind you there are plenty of heterosexuals that jump in and out of bed with loads of people and they don't have to be celibate . HIV is rising fast amongst straight people.

theinet the rule really isn't about prejudice. it's about a trade off, what very broadly defined part of the population can you exclude to catch most of the infected people. I wouldn't be allowed to donate blood in many parts of the world because I lived in England during vCJD. even though I haven't eaten meat in decades. I don't presume they think I am lying.

Pfft, testing blood works for HIV only 3 months after infection. if the person was infected more recently than that, testing won't show it. I don't know the stats for hepatitis. but what about the next big virus we don't know about for which no test is yet available?

They have to have simple rules with pretty well no exceptions though, as they are administered by staff on the frontline with a lot of potential donors to screen in a very short period of time, in the case of the needlestick injury it may well have all been OK but my guess is that the staff at the session are not permitted to override the rules as they are not (presumably) doctors, and it would all have to be documented. As soon as you start varying the rules it's the thin end of the wedge.

@theinet

they don't think gay men in a "monogomous" relationship , can keep it monogamous - simple as that.

mind you there are plenty of heterosexuals that jump in and out of bed with loads of people and they don't have to be celibate . HIV is rising fast amongst straight people.

They do now, although clearly, you don't.

It's been a long time coming.

@Barkspawn

It's been a long time coming.

It was 9 years ago! Zombie thread

I meant the news that just came out today, didn't notice the thread was that old.

I can't give blood any more because the IVF drugs I had in the 90s make me a mad cow risk, apparently. Strangely no medical professional has ever suggested that I personally might be at risk from those drugs.

I see the usual suspects are complaining about this on twitter.

@missymarmite

Last year I had a relationship with an African man who is now permanently resident in the UK. On applying for his visa he had a medical, in the UK, which confirmed he was HIV negative. Even so, and even though I have also had a blood check, I cannot give blood until a year has passed since we broke up. He can never donate blood. Just because of where he comes from.

I guess they have to put people's safety first, even when it seems like overkill.

I can never give blood in the States due to Mad Cow..Because of where I come from and have resided.Those are the breaks

Donating Blood is not a "right"

Thankfully those are no longer the breaks for gay men.