AIBU to think this is homophobic?

[MotherPanda]

Was just looking at the guidelines for giving blood and it reads that you must not give blood if you have had sex with:

A man (if you?re a male). Men who have had anal or oral sex with another man (with or without a condom) are deferred from blood donation for 12 months.

Can someone explain to me why this is different from heterosexual anal sex or any sexuality oral sex?

I don't see why the risk is greater.

Can you link to the guidelines?

On the face of it, that sounds weird

www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/who-cant-give-blood/

and heres some more info - that doesn't answer my question either

www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/exclusion/

Apparently it used to be that gay men were excluded forever from donating and the 12 month ban is a recent change.

I THOUGHT it was any anal sex?

I think it's to do with there historically being a greater rate of infections among the gay community, and is in place to protect recipients of donated blood not to exclude gay men from donating.

Doesn't it also say stuff about sex with people from many countries in Africa? It's not being racist, it's protecting recipients again.

Until recently (this month?) gay men could not donate at all. This has been reduced to a 12 months deferral. They are deemed at higher risk of HIV than heterosexual people (with the exception of sex workers, women who have had sex with men who have slept with men and intravenous drug users). People are still campaigning that those who use condoms shouldnt have to wait. It's a lot better than the old rules and hopefully it will be reviewed again now they can donate.

Maybe the figures for things like Hepatitis, HIV etc are higher in the gay male community, so they are basing their guidelines on the odds.

It does seem to imply though that if you are a gay male you be more promiscuous, which is an outrageous suggestion.

Although reading that link perhaps not.

Isn't the risk of HIV much higher with anal sex though? Hence the 12 months exclusion so it would show in the blood?

According to the Terrence Higgins Trust 73% of HIV infections in 2010 were diagnosed in gay men and 21% in people recently migrated from Africa. Both groups have restrictions on giving blood. It's not about homophobia, it's about protecting public health from unnecessary high risks.

Yes it does, and prostitutes - it seems odd to exclude whole groups of people - if you believe a person to be at a higher risk, why not refer them for sti checks and then allow them to donate once they have the all clear?

Apparently only 4% of people give blood, seems silly to force perfectly healtthy people not to.

And no, hetero couples can have all the oral and anal they like.

They aren't excluding them (any more) they are just having sensible restrictions in place in order to allow blood to be safely screened.

I still think it's wrong to exclude people who may well be in a long term, monogamous relationship based on that, Kladdkaka.

But I suppose that leads to the idea of asking people if they sleep around etc, which is also an invasion of privacy.

But to me it does seem homophobic (racist? Maybe) that a person could prove that they are healthy, but still be refused because of sexuality/ race.

Because the risk of AIDS is higher, and it has been challenged, as stated above. there's also restrictions around things like if you've had your ears pierced recently, and pretty much anyone from an African country is viewed comme ca:
My dad has donated blood for over 20 years, and it took him a while to convince the blood donor people in the UK that even though he was from South Africa, it didn't mean he had AIDS (married to my Mom for 30+ years with no other partners, no drug taking, no blood transfusions etc.)

All blood donated is tested for HIV but the problem is if you have caught it quite recently it may not show up hence exclusion for a set amount of time.

YABU. It is not homophobic. The rules for blood donation are based on scientific research, not the whim of whoever prints the forms. They are to protect the public as far as reasonably practicable from picking up a disease from infected blood, not to score brownie points for polical correctness or to have a dig at people who have gay sex. An explanation of this particular rule is given here.

as afishywedding says, its because sadly rates of HIV are higher in that community. You are also excluded if you are a straight female who has had sex with a man who has had homosexual encounters.
But, you're also excluded if (off top of head from last time I gave blood)
-you've been to Africa in X time period (man in front was rejected due to 2 hr flight stopover in Lagos)

• you've had acupuncture in last 12 months by none NHS practitioner
• you've had peircing/ tattoo in last 12 months
• you have high risk sex (sex workers)

and many more. They can afford to be fussy and minimise the risk of transmisson as much as possible.

It seems like cost saving and convenience to me.

It is higher risk because the prevalence is higher in men who have sex with men (even if not exclusively). Even though the incidence of new cases now is not too dissimilar to purely heterosexual health (often quoted, but misleading), the prevalence is (IIRC) approx seven times higher. This will level out long term, and hopefully the guidelines will represent this, as the recent change to 12 months does the decrease in incidence.

I personally don't think it is homophobic, as it doesn't just ask about your sexuality but about behaviour and women who have a male partner who has had male partners are excluded. I can see why some people might be offended but there are so many restrictions you can object to (is it racism not to allow donations from certain countries, particularly sub Saharan Africa)? Was it racist for the US not to allow Brits to donate following BSE? I'm not allowed due to a different medical condition and that could be considered disability discrimination. I think if there was no increased risk, you could call it prejudice, but the risks should be considered and a cut off drawn between enough blood/ safety standards. I can see why sexuality based questioning might feel more like a judgement, and that is the attitude we need to tackle, not any fallouts from it.

Explanation of resons for grouping here:

The change brings the criteria for men who have sex with men in line with those for the majority of other groups that are deferred from blood donation for 12 months due to the risks of infection associated with sexual behaviours. We appreciate that it can be disappointing for anyone who wishes to donate blood but is not able to meet the donor selection criteria. The criteria are based on complex assessments of risk and must by their nature be based on evidence and statistics that are recorded at a population level. Such an approach results in assessments of certain groups as being at a higher risk than others of carrying blood borne infections, and can make individuals that are deferred from donation feel they are being placed into a 'category' even if they believe their own sexual behaviour and risk-taking would not be a risk to the blood supply.

Although some would prefer a system that assesses every individual's behaviour and level of risk rather than applying deferrals to groups, SaBTO's review concluded that there is insufficient evidence available to be able to determine the impact on blood safety of such a system. It is also not certain that all people could objectively assess their own level of risk. Based on published data, the review also concluded that the introduction of extensive donor questions regarding sexual behaviour could lead to a loss of existing donors who may find the process intrusive. The Blood Services are therefore required to follow deferral rules that estimate the statistical risk of certain groups based on behaviour. We are sorry for any inadvertent offence this may cause

they can't prove their healthy. Noone can. Thats why its risk based.

Frilly - that's interesting about the hiv taking a while to show up.

I was tested for hiv during my pregnancy, which came back negative - does this mean that was a bit of a useless exercise?

Of course it's cost saving and convenience. In this case it means that the right of people in need of a blood transfusion to receive safe blood trumps the preference of men who have gay sex to give blood. Where's the problem? [confusion]

But it is based on huge assumptions - we really should look at people individually, look at their blood and find out if its safe for the recipient.

I suppose my frustration is that blood is needed, we need more donors, but i feel like guidelines are in place to limit people donating whose blood is probably fine.

With HIV there is a 'window period' where blood screening will show up negative for infection when in fact there IS an infection which can be passed on to the blood recipient. The 12 month ban is to protect the recipient from this risk with high risk groups.

The rules are in place to protect the recipient. They are the vulnerable group. They are the first priorty.