UK ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood lifted

Status
Not open for further replies.

eyeblink

Barbara says hi
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
6,358
Reaction score
893
Location
Aldershot, UK
Here.

Previously any man who had had sex with another man, even safely, even if only once and long ago, were banned for life from giving blood. As of 7 November, this ban will be lifted - they only have to not have had sex with another man in the last twelve months.

As I fall into that category, I will be giving blood again. Particularly as I have a less-usual blood type, namely B Rh+.
 

BunnyMaz

Ruining your porn since 1984
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
2,295
Reaction score
412
Age
40
Hooray for a small sliver of common sense!

It still isn't good enough, though. The ban should never have existed in the first place. Gay men, bi men and men who may have had sex with another man for any other reason should not have to wait a year to give blood.

They are still making the ridiculous suggestion that gay sex is somehow dirty. They just aren't saying it's a lifelong taint, now.
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
It still isn't good enough, though. The ban should never have existed in the first place. Gay men, bi men and men who may have had sex with another man for any other reason should not have to wait a year to give blood.

The life-long ban was a knee-jerk reaction from the late 1980s when HIV first came, and was a death sentence. You have to keep in mind that many hemophiliacs were infected with tainted blood at the time, before screening started.

This restriction I can live with because HIV is, unfortunately, higher in some segments of the gay male population. In London it's estimated that up to 20% of the gay bar/club scene carry the infection. And since it takes quite some time before newly infected can be identified, I think it's as long as three months, then I understand this restriction.

What we don't want is a return to the days of the compromised blood supply, and I as a gay man is willing to live with restrictions. I just wish they'd restrict it more along unsafe sexual practices. Two men in a non-adultorous partnerships isn't going to be more unsafe that two people in an non-adultorous heterosexual partnership.
 

BunnyMaz

Ruining your porn since 1984
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
2,295
Reaction score
412
Age
40
But surely they test all their blood supplies now before using it, regardless of where it came from? Wouldn't it make more sense to require the donor to have a STI test within x-weeks or x-months of the day of donation? They'd still have to test blood obviously, but they'd be more likely to receive blood from people who generally practice safe sex methods and responsible sexual precautions in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
But surely they test all their blood supplies now before using it, regardless of where it came from? Wouldn't it make more sense to require the donor to have a STI test within x-weeks or x-months of the day of donation? They'd still have to test blood obviously, but they'd be more likely to receive blood from people who generally practice safe sex methods and responsible sexual precautions in the first place.

But I think it takes an awful long time for antibodies for HIV to show up in the blood stream in detectable levels, so for any risky behaviour it takes a long time for the consequences to be identifiable.

Anyways, such a ban is quite ineffectual since it relies on two very intrusive questions that people lie about. One it requires people to answer truthfully about whether they'd had sex with males at all, or it requires people to truthfully answer whether they've been adultorous.

So, I don't know. I do think it needs to be a medical decision based on risk and likelihood, and unfortunately the prevalence of HIV is just so much bigger among men that have sex with men (not just gays here, mind) than in any other risk-group.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Solving for the conditional probability that you're actually infected with HIV or not given a positive or negative test is the most common problem I've seen in Introduction to Probability courses when introducing Bayes' formula.
 

attacus-atlas

Registered
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
Portland, Oregon
So why do they restrict it to men? Couldn't they just say you can't give blood if you have had unprotected sex (regardless of your or your partner's gender) in the past year or 6 months? It's not like straight couples aren't at any risk for HIV.

Of course, people can and do lie when they give blood. The restrictions only work if people are 100% truthful when they take the screening test.

There is another restriction that says you cannot give blood if you have had sexual contact with anyone who has lived in Africa, which I suppose is a slightly different issue...
 

Becca_H

Where am I again?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
542
Reaction score
28
Location
United Kingdom
While I understand that HIV rates are higher amongst gay men, it doesn't differentiate between people in long-term, stable relationships and those single and looking, who have sex with different partners. And that applies to all people of all sexualities.

It's very easy to lie, but I very much doubt anybody with HIV is going to give blood, and that's what matters - not their sexuality. Testing for it is of course another issue.
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
I have this instinct to cry "Discrimination!" in this matter, and bark and shout to get rid of it, but I have to temper my injured sense of equality with scientific fact, and that fact is that in metropolitan areas, in certain segments of the MSM population (not just gays, but all men who have sex with men) the prevalence of HIV is very high. And, more importantly, a large section of the infected population do not know that they are infected.

HIV takes such a long time to manifest itself that it can take years before any symptoms show, and with this disgusting idea that is common now that HIV is a manageable disease, a chronic inconvenience, many people never bother to test themselves.

So, I don't know how to get around it without injuring my pride and my equality, for concrete medical and scientific reasons.
 

BigWords

Geekzilla
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
10,670
Reaction score
2,360
Location
inside the machine
And, more importantly, a large section of the infected population do not know that they are infected.

Is testing still free? Testing for infections, regardless of the number of partners or the use of protection, is something which should be seen as a person's duty to themselves and future partners.
 

Becca_H

Where am I again?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
542
Reaction score
28
Location
United Kingdom
Is testing still free? Testing for infections, regardless of the number of partners or the use of protection, is something which should be seen as a person's duty to themselves and future partners.

I had an HIV test when I was 18. It was just procedure, and I'm not even sure why I had it, but they overcomplicated it massively. I needed counselling and was told about how a positive result could change my life. Inability to get a mortage, etc. I knew I was negative, so it didn't matter to me, but if I wasn't sure, it would've scared the hell out of me.

I didn't pay for it.

Same for other STDs. Tests are free, and encouraged. 18- to 23-year-olds are often sent free test kits in the post for various diseases, with free gifts with the return of the test kit.
 

DiloKeith

Doesn't scare easily
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
621
Reaction score
110
Website
dilokeith.wordpress.com
I have this instinct to cry "Discrimination!" in this matter, and bark and shout to get rid of it, but I have to temper my injured sense of equality with scientific fact, and that fact is that in metropolitan areas, in certain segments of the MSM population (not just gays, but all men who have sex with men) the prevalence of HIV is very high. And, more importantly, a large section of the infected population do not know that they are infected.

HIV takes such a long time to manifest itself that it can take years before any symptoms show, and with this disgusting idea that is common now that HIV is a manageable disease, a chronic inconvenience, many people never bother to test themselves.

So, I don't know how to get around it without injuring my pride and my equality, for concrete medical and scientific reasons.


Great post.

...There is another restriction that says you cannot give blood if you have had sexual contact with anyone who has lived in Africa, which I suppose is a slightly different issue...

I think this one is based on a particular form of HIV (found in some areas of Africa) that is not detected in the tests.
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
These are UK figures. I don't have sources for the US, but I bet they're not that different.

http://aidsmap.com/Percentage-of-ga...ificantly-between-1998-and-2003/page/1419765/
The city with the highest HIV prevalence was Brighton, where one in seven (13.7%; 95% CI, 10.6%-17.5%) of the men who agreed to anonymous HIV antibody testing were found to be HIV-infected. However, Brighton had the lowest percentage of undiagnosed men: one in three (33.3%) were unaware of their infection.

These are really old numbers, from 2003-2005, but consider that the 1990s were the peak of the AIDS scare, and you still had one third of the MSM in Brighton that didn't know they were infected.

Why? Many reasons I suppose. People are scared to find out, or they think it won't infect them, or they have other reasons that I can't understand or see. And with HIV being more of a chronic disease the impetous for testing, which should have been higher in 2003 is probably weakened by the idea that drugs will "save" now.
 

Celia Cyanide

Joker Groupie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
15,479
Reaction score
2,295
Location
probably watching DARK KNIGHT
I have this instinct to cry "Discrimination!" in this matter, and bark and shout to get rid of it, but I have to temper my injured sense of equality with scientific fact, and that fact is that in metropolitan areas, in certain segments of the MSM population (not just gays, but all men who have sex with men) the prevalence of HIV is very high. And, more importantly, a large section of the infected population do not know that they are infected.

HIV takes such a long time to manifest itself that it can take years before any symptoms show, and with this disgusting idea that is common now that HIV is a manageable disease, a chronic inconvenience, many people never bother to test themselves.

So, I don't know how to get around it without injuring my pride and my equality, for concrete medical and scientific reasons.

I agree. I "donated" plasma for many years (I used quotes because plasma donation is so onerous that they always pay you, even a little bit) and the list of questions that began with "in the past 12 months, have you..." would have astounded you. For whatever reason, people with certain histories are considered high risk for HIV. If men who had sex with men were the only high risk group who were not allowed to give blood, I might see it as discrimination. But they aren't. We could not donate if we had received blood transfusions, products made from blood, tattoos, ear or skin peircings, or money or drugs in exchange for sex in the last 12 months. I don't even necessarily know WHY some people are high risk, but I do know that they are. As Max says, it is scientific fact, not speculation or stereotyping.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
They do test all the blood now, since an effective test was developed in 1992. But didn't for decades, which is why we ended up with a lot of hemophiliacs with HIV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.