Gays can't give blood?! Is Health Minister Poots right?

[DrinkFeckArseGirls]

Really? Is it a new ban or has it been in force before??? So me being bi-sexual means I shouldn't give blood? How are they going to police that? I might have fewer sexual partners than many hetero people so how does that make any sense? I haven't had a bonk in 2 years but I am still high risk? Sorry, lots of ?s but I'm gobsmacked.

Its not new and IMHO is pretty disgraceful.

Its well known that the majority of new HIV cases are amongst heterosexual population.
IME gay men and women are far more aware of their sexual health than others

IIRC it is some bonkers rule about anal sex between men.

I haven't given blood in a while but I think the forms ask you if you have ever had sex with a man who has had sex with another man, or maybe it's the bit about doing it for drugs. Can't remember the precise wording.

AFAIK by gay people, they actually mean gay men.

Men who have had sex with men in the last 12 months are unable to donate blood at present see here

No not a new ban AFAIK, think its more for gay men than lesbians though and I always thought it was due to anal? And more
Likely to contract an STI/STD from anal than regular sex
(all of this is my theory/assumptions however and I'm not particularly educated on statistics or gay practices so don't take this as gospel)

I would hope assume however that they test all donated blood before administering to another patient therefore rendering the ban pointless?

The ban has been in place since the 80s or 90s in UK. It is based on evidence of HIV levels in certain populations and is aimed solely at protecting the recipients.

They rely on self-declaration (which also covers medications, recreational intravenous drug use and sexual contacts of injectors, those who have had sex with prostitute, travel to areas with tropical disease risks and other medical history).

There has been a move recently to change this, so if you have been celibate for a year the bar is not automatic.

Ring the transfusion service. They will be able to tell you if you can donate.

Hmm, remember now reading that bit about sex with men on the form.

1. BBC News should be more accurate in writing its articles.
2. One way or another it's disgusting IMHO. Gay men too have long term monogamous relationships so may not be exposed to 'risky' partners. I understand drug addicts may not be best suitable for giving blood as they may not be careful with needles adn sex practices but to include gay men in the exclusions is going too far.

Surely they screen all the blood anyway?

There's plenty of straight people with AIDS and so on.

The normal test for HIV may not be positive until 3 months after a person has contracted it, so screening may not necessarily detect it.

Hmm. Difficult situation then...

Yes they screen the blood, but that costs money, so it would be logical for someone to just not donate if they are at risk of something.
Perhaps the rule should be about anyone (regardless of orientation) who has had a new partner in the last six months.
I fail to see how a gay couple who have been in a relationship for a long time, and who are faithful, would be more of a risk than a straight couple.

Exactly Eeyore, you can have a straight man who goes out every night shagging and a gay guy who's been loved up for 20 years, yet the latter can't donate.

It doesn't make sense.

That's a disgrace.

Screening out people with new partners, as Eeyore suggests, seems sensible.

I agree it's ridiculous, but this is actually a relaxation of even stricter rules that were in force until quite recently. It used to be the case that you were banned from giving blood if (as a man) you had EVER IN YOUR LIFE had gay sex. They made a big song and dance about how liberal and non-homophobic they were being when they changed the rules so that the ban applied ONLY if you had had gay sex in the last 12 months!

It's because the prevalence rate is massively (order of magnitudes) higher for gay men than for straight men in the UK. The ban is probabilistic - like the ban on people from, say, Botswana.
It's a historic thing - HIV started in the UK amongst gay men and achieved very high levels of prevalence very quickly, and hence any man having sex with another man in the UK is highly likely to be exposed.

We now have a good level of faith in the screening after 6 months from infection (and of course HIV is no longer normally fatal in the UK, so it's less of a disaster if blood security is weakened) which is why the rules have been relaxed from a lifetime ban to a "sex within last 6 months" ban.

Yes most newly diagnosed HIV results from heterosexual sex but
A) heterosexuals outnumber gay men about 20 to 1, so it's hardly surprising
B) the vast majority of those cases result from risk factors dealt with by other questions (paid sex and people from high HIV prevalence areas of the world mostly)
C) there is a historic backlog of HIV prevalence among gay men from earlier years

It's all to do with statistics. Yes, most new cases of HIV are amongst heterosexuals - but that's because there are more of them. Even so, the percentage of heterosexuals with HIV is smaller than the percentage of gay men with HIV, because there are fewer gay men so it's a smaller pool. Also, anal sex is far more likely to transmit the virus than vaginal sex. The rules have to be strict because HIV may not show up in blood tests for 3 months after exposure so some infected blood could theoretically slip through the screening process.

Here is th current lists of exclusions, which shows permanent bans, those who need to defer for some months and those circumstances which the Transfusion Service would want to review individually. It also includes a link to the Terrence Higgins Trust who have been working with the blood people to find the best solution.

There is also a contact phone number if you want to check your individual suitability.

The most important factor - acknowledged by all sides - is an evidence-based risk management of medically relevant factors.

ARiver it would be nice if that was their reasoning, but if it was then there would be a condition that allowed donations from a gay man with an active sex-life mutually faithful to one long-term partner both of whom have had negative tests for HIV. Men in this category have a much lower risk than many people with an active and varied hetero-sex-life, but the latter are welcomed whereas the former are rejected.

Agreed that in theory a man in a long-term monogamous partnership with an HIV negative male partner should be fine, but translating that into practice means a man who says/believes he's in a monogamous partnership - and I've read too many women on the relationships board who believed, wrongly, that they were in monogamous relationships, to trust men's fidelity that far - unless I absolutely had to.

There are risk assessments and more work to be done here though. Logically the blood service should perhaps exclude all heterosexual women, because their partners might be sleeping with prostitutes or men behind their back - but clearly if you do that then people would die for lack of blood transfusions.

It is a disgraceful ban, based on homophobic assumptions and stereotypes. It would be great if the correct terminology could be used too - unprotected anal sex carries high risks, not anal sex per se.

So why just the ban on gay men, as opposed to anyone who has anal sex? I've been donating for years and never been asked whether I engage in that.

I don't think it's based on homophobic assumptions. You are aware of the ban on sex with nationals from a whole range of countries too? Do you think that's because they are racist?

Is US racist because it bans Britons?

Or is it all because they are using the best available medical evidence to reduce the possibility of unsafe blood reaching vulnerable recipients?

BTW: from Terrence Higgins Trust website: "we believe that this is a public health issue, rather than one of homophobic discrimination".

Anal sex can only transmit HIV if you're doing it with someone who has HIV. Hence heterosexual anal sex is still pretty low risk unless paid for. As prevalence spreads into the wider population (especially in London) then it might become a question worth asking - though NB that the rules for gay men have never distinguished between oral and anal sex, I have no idea why, but perhaps it's to do with avoiding overly intrusive / intimate questioning.

ARiverInEgypt and EdithWeston are absolutely right. This isn't to do with homophobia, it's to do with probability. You have to go on general trends. It's the same principle by which insurance companies have historically charged higher motor insurance to men aged 17-21 - any individual young man may be a safe driver but as a group they're high risk.

Although I can't link from phone (maybe somebody else could please) there is a brilliant FAQ on the Terrence Higgins website that explains this all in immense detail.
As I understand it they are very worried about the PC line that "Thinking HIV is a gay problem is a homophobic stereotype". Well-meaning defensive comments like this lead a lot of young gay men to underestimate their risk, with potentially disastrous consequences.