Ok, maybe I'm being a bit dim here, but could someone please explain to me why gay men can't donate blood?

[yorkshirepudding]

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Because sometimes things need to be spelled out.

And it isn't just gay men who are precluded from donating, it is also people who have had sex with anyone in sub saharan africa, for example.

And that isn't racisism. It is because the rates of AIDs and HIV in Africa are higher than elsewhere in the world, sadly.

anal sex is more risky than vaginal sex because of the structure and tissues that make up the organs, and the degree of lubrication produced.

It isn't bigotry, it is biology

factor 8

mb - thanks.

Thing is, they are being as cautious as they possibly can be now. But in the 80s they were merrily buying blood from US prisoners, a population they knew included many drug absuers. And thousands of poor people, many haemophiliacs, were infected with diseases such as HIV and hep B as a result.

I'd rather they were over-cautious, tbh. It's just not logistically or economically sensible to screen individual donations. Esp. with time lag between infection and showing up in tests.

yp, I suppose the reason it seems unpleasant to many people is most things (tattoos, exotic holidays) you are excluded for a length of time to minimize risks. Gay men are excluded permanently, which does seem a bit like "your blood's not good enough for us". Can see why they do it but with the shortage as it is, and with the short shelf life as mb has explained to me, there needs to be a better system.

Ican't give blood, btw, because I'm on medication. So I always encourage dh to get to as many sessions as he can to make up for it!

It is just a statistical thing kama. You're always going to be able to find loads of nonsense examples. Gay men as a whole will be at higher risk of HIV, as mb says it's down to biology. Plenty of gay men will be at the same risk level as straight couples in monogomous relationships - i.e. very low.

oooh edam - 2 months later - "right, you're going for me now"

But then the risk is 'diluted' IYSWIM.

If there is a 1 in a 100 risk the first person has HIV, and there is a 1/100 chance of it getting passed on. (these risks are made up BTW, just to elaborate!) There is less risk of the second person getting infected.

Message withdrawn

BTW the quide lines say nothing about the ethnic origin or racial group of the person in sub saharan africa. Black, white or daygo makes no odds at all

It really isn't racisism.

Infection rates in parts of africa are 1 in 10 of sexually active people.

and everyone should take control of protecting themselves from AIDs, regardles of sexual preference or prefered racial group of partners.

Fastest rising group of infected people in the UK are straight people. The kids in Branagins should be asking the question and practicing safe sex

Message withdrawn

Elf!

It's not racism.
Accusations of racism really piss off HIV researchers btw - it's nobody's fault HIV began in Africa, do we not do the research because it involves mainly black Africans?
(My HIV-researching friend recently had hate mail and very nasty phone calls accusing him of being a racist. Nice.)

It's not racism - it doesn't matter whether you're black, white, or orange with green spots.

Even if I'd slept with 5 white Africans - and was married to a white African who had been sexually active only with white people in Africa - I still wouldn't be allowed to give blood.

In some countries in Sub-Saharan African the infection rate is 1 in 4!

Message withdrawn

Really.
I had a browse round some blogs and he was being crucified - totally wrongly.
My dh was on the paper too but isn't in AMerica so thankfully got overlooked.

It's not unusual btw

well, I'm never allowed to donate blood in switzerland because I lived in Uk between 1987 and 1995 (or whatever the years are) I've had several hiv tests (baby production line) am fine, but them's the rules. That's not racism or bigotry either. It's just a fact. risk limitation. The fact that I was vegan during these years wouldn't affect the decision. For such huge programmes they need to have straight forward, clear rules. Self-risk assessment is obviously going to get people coming forward who possibly shouldn't.

if you were one of the many people infected following a blood transfusion, surely you'd welcome the measures put in place? These rules aren't made up to hurt people's feelings fgs. So many people getting on their high horses about this, how many people on these threads are micro biology/ viral experts? I can't believe how many people condemn this, surely the decision was made for very good reasons by people who know significantly more about it.

It's a stupid rule! Hetrosexual aquired HIV is more of a risk today and is the biggest group at risk

'Up until 1998, men who have sex with men formed the main exposure category for new HIV diagnoses. However, in 1999, heterosexually acquired HIV became the largest category, and has continued to be so ever since. The proportion of HIV infections acquired through injecting drug use has been much smaller in the UK than in many other European countries.'

The number of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK has risen hugely over the last 15 years. In 1999, for the first time, the rate of heterosexually acquired HIV diagnoses overtook the rate of diagnoses in men who have sex with men. During 2006, there were 3,430 reports of heterosexually acquired HIV, and a total of 36,603 had been reported by the end of June 2007.

Most of the new diagnoses are in people who probably acquired HIV in other countries, particularly in Africa. However, the number of infections probably acquired from heterosexual sex within the UK has soared from 183 in 1998 to 549 in 2006.

So to blanket ban ALL gay men is ridiculous

But then, minorityrules, would you ban all heterosexual people from giving blood, because they are a higher risk group?

No you wouldn't - that would not make sense either. And the bulk of the new diagnoses, according to your quote, is covered by the "sex in Africa" rule.

Totally agree with ernest too.

It's not homophobia, nor is it racism.