Gay people banned from giving blood - homophobic? <again>

[Fridayfeeling]

No this is not the 1980s, apparently it is still the case that gay men are banned from donating blood.

The NHS National Blood Service say that its reasons for banning gay people from becoming blood donors come down to cost,their opinion is that blood from a gay person is more likely to be infected than blood from a straight person. Therefore, they say, the costs of screening gay blood are too high.

I don't believe so. A colleague of mine died of vcjd but they weren't actually able to establish that that was what she actually had until she died.

I find that question appalling - "are you a man who has had oral or anal sex? (Even with protection)"

Actually this is a very non-homophobic and non-judgmental way of questioning men about their sexual practices. There are a lot of men who would NEVER regard themselves as gay, homosexual, bisexual or however you want to label it, but who still partake in oral or anal intercourse with other men. It is true that men who have sex with other men are more at risk of having STIs such as HIV, Syphilis an hepatitis. That is not a homophobic statement, that is a fact. It is also a fact that HIV is rising now more steadily in the heterosexual population, but unfortunately HIV is still more prevalent within the men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) group. To bring this back to the donating blood debate, I think the blood service, unfortunately does have to source its blood from people as low risk as possible and for this reason that is why certain populations are discriminated against. I don't necessarily agree with this, but I do think they have to follow certain guidelines to make it as safe as possible for the recipients of blood or blood products.

yes, odd that. Well, not add so much as interesting. And HIV has very little effect on Rhesus monkeys

VCJD is another one that has probably been around for ever.

I read once (nothing to back this up) that some victims of shell-shock following the Great War were more likely to have contracted VCDJ.

Again, not sure, but tissue samples verified a case from a man who died in 1919?

If my son was gay I wouldn't want him to feel bad about himself either. But I don't see that donating blood , or his inability to do so, would be his main problem.

In your first post you said 'Their opinion is that blood from a gay [person is more likely to be infected than blood from a straight person'

The reality is that it isn't opinion , it is fact. And stating that fact doesn't make the blood transfusion people homophobic. It makes the accurate.

But getting back to the topic, discrimination is such a loaded word, isn't it?

My mother tried to give blood years ago, but they wouldn't accept it because she was an alcoholic. Was that discrimination, too?

and people who have visited a malarial area

(and we must all than the Fates that HIV isn't transfered in mosquitos!)

Wannabe - perhaps you are right, maybe it is only in the brain that it can be diagnosed post partum.

drug addicts are also not allowed to donate, i suppose that those who think gays are discriminated against becasue of their high risk factor that so are drug addicts and people who use prostitutes as well as people from african populations. it is not just gays who are not allowed to donate.

even if i had had a baby, a negative HIV test but had slept with an african before all this i would not be permitted to donate blood.

i think that what is being done is for the best for the general population.

i know that HIV is no longer a death sentence and i can see why some would rather have infected blood than none at all but i hoep i would never be in that situation and nobody should be due to high risk people not being permitted to donate blood.

there was a heamphiliac man on the news several years ago who had been given blood infected with HIV and hep C. i think he would have rather not had the blood was the general feeling.

But I do think the underlying emphasis on the policy is that gay men are promiscuous and unclean - I totally agree that giving blood is the least of the problems in facing being gay in today's society for a gay man, however it is also a policy representative of what we feel about gay men - and just an example of acceptable homophobia.

I know - pig headed, lost cause

"Why are you all appalled at 'infected blood or no blood at all?". because to suggest that it is ok for the nhs to spread viruses such as HIV purely on the basis that they are saving lives is disgusting. Do you realize the implications of not testing blood? or passing infected blood on? so you receive a blood transfusion and you contract HIV. But you don't realize you've contracted HIV and you sleep with two men in the meantime, both of whom contract the virus, and who both go on to sleep with 5 women, who in turn sleep with 5 men... and somewhere in the equasion a baby is conceived who also contracts the virus during the birth process, because his mother doesn't know she has HIV ... can you imagine the cost to the taxpayer if we willingly passed this virus around?

HIV is spreading very rapidly on its own without the intervention of the NHS.

As with Cali, I can't give blood in Oz fior the same reason [only it wasn't Pete's burger van, I don't think]...

Oddly enough tho, I am allowed to be an organ donor, which is a tad weird! Unless they just haven't picked up on it yet...

I do agree that discrimination is a very loaded word.

due to the fact I am blind I cannot drive a car because I will not be allowed a driving licence. is it fair to say then that I am being discriminated against because I have a disability?

friday - no one is saying that homosexuality is unclean.

Surely it is a matter of whether it is economically viable to test the blood. If not then there must be some exceptions surely, anyone in a high risk category and yes that does include gay men, people who have injected drugs, people who have travelled abroad for various lengths of time, people on certain drugs. The list if very long.

Personally as a recipient of a huge blood transfusion after dd was born, I am glad that they are so careful. I am not allowed to give blood because I have received a transfusion myself and because of certain drugs I am on.

That is exactly what the blood service are saying

Message withdrawn

I don't remember Zammo having a blood transfusion...

hmmmmmmmmm - intersting to read this thrad after being involved with a lengthy consultation process with the blood transfusion service on this very issue.
so many posts i want to respond to bbut will contain it!!
alot of services, agencies and reserchers feel that there isnot the empiical evidence to support this policy. This is taking a higher risk activity and assuming that the level of risk is the same for every person doing that activity. there is no individual consultation carried out - with a more detailed overview of practices and behaviour taken, to come up with a more accurate picture as to suitability to donate blood.

alot of discussion is still ongoing and actually this policy may be up for review again very shortly.

NO, the blood transfusion people are not saying that the blood of gay people is unclean....they take lesbian blood for a start.

What they are saying is that the likelihood of them being infected with HIV is higher than the average, as it is for other specific groups all of which are excluded from donating.

There may be a lag between getting (and being infectious) and showing up as positive of three months.

Given that the blood transfusion people actually gave people HIV in the 1980s they don't want to do it again.

You seem to b prepared to accept the increased risk of spreading the disease, they are not.

The costs of screening the blood of gay people isn't just measure in pounds, it is measure in infected people. And as yet no-one has come up with data to show that the blood transfusion people are so short of blood that the extra risk is worth taking

When I traveled in Africa I took a sterile kit, so that I didn't risk getting HIV from non sterile equipment if I had an accident, didn't that make me racist? No, it made me prudent.

If a risk anaylsis is carried out, and the relative risks are the same, or the difference not significant it would be time for a change of policy, but to want to do it simply to 'make people feel better about themselves' isn't rational.

Better to spend the time and effort on education

I do feel the question on the BT website is wrong and should apply to everyone, not just men.

I think it is worrying to hear the information from MB about the lag in antibody production as I know for a fact that a member of my family gives blood often and has regular anal sex with different men, so he must lie. I do also know that he would always use protection so is technically less of a risk than a promiscuous heterosexual woman who doesn't.

However as many people are saying, there has to be a line drawn to determine risk and rule out the demographic which poses the most risk. I feel that the line they have drawn is neither homophobic or discriminatory (although they should change the wording on the web page). As MB says there is always a risk, in everything we do and we put our trust in the powers that be to do everything in their power to protect us.

The reason it was being used as a free test AFAIK (cynical though it is, I do know gay and straight individuals who went specifically for this reason) was that you could then avoid the question on life insurance policies - 'Have you ever been tested for HIV?' and it was felt to be 'safer' than having records kept at STD clinics.

I can't give blood as I have an auto-immune disease triggered by pregnancy which means that my blood doesn't clot properly. I don't have a problem with that, as my blood might be a risk to someone if given to them. I think on this one the greater good has to be taken into account even if it does offend some people. I've just done the questionnaire on the blood donation website, and as I have resided outside the UK for 6 months (in Belgium), I couldn't donate either. The questionnaire is a blunt instrument trying to protect people.

I'd be livid if DS needed a blood transfusion and he contracted a disease from it because somebody lied about themselves. Sometimes we just have to accept that with our rights and choices we have responsibilities to others. This is one of those times.

yes, I agree with mb.

I can't give blood because of countries I've travelled to in Africa. I know my blood is OK but when I had to have tests done, I had to have several done over a year because not everything (they are worried about!) shows up immediately in the first test.

I have a friend who has contracted AIDS and hepatitis from blood products. He's very active in promoting safe practice by the equivalent of the blood transfusion service in Canada (where he lives) and can far more eloquently than I explain the ban on men who have sex wth men donating and why it's not homophobic. His argument is that it's not just about HIV. Men who have sex with men and injecting drug users (people who expose their blood to the sera of other individuals) are always going to provide environments for the next blood borne disease to transmit quickly. If it has a long incubation period (like HIV and hepatitis) the BTS wouldn't develop a test for it until it had spread and possibly been transmitted by transfusion to many others.

It's not homophobic to ask people who are at higher risk of such diseases to refrain from giving blood. Assessing individual risks is hard (monogamous gay man in 20 year relationship is probably at lower risk than promiscuous straight woman), so the BTS picks demographic groups that are on average at higher risk. My friend has had his life changed beyond belief and is facing a death sentance because the people giving him blood products did not exercise sufficient caution.

I can't give blood ever again either, as after giving birth I had to have a blood transfusion (here in the UK in 2006).

I was told by the blood helpline that the reason I can no longer donate is tha there has been a SINGLE case of a person recieving blood going on to have human CJD. The bloodline said there was absolutely no evidence that the blood transfusion caused the onset of the disease, the person could have already had it, but even with no link and only a single case they have banned everyone who has had a blood transfusion from donating.

No wonder that there is such a shortage of blood, the amount of people who can donate must be pitifully low.

Mama - I am sorry to hear about your friend - have they been told that the donor was a gay man?