Government response to UK gay man ban on giving blood

[Pushyourluck]

Simply don't tell them your sex orientation if you're that determined to give your blood to the ungrateful swines!

 

[heightsboi]

Tests for HIV are not 100%--the most problematic is early on in infection. The American Red Cross bans any "high-risk" donors which include MSMs and anyone who's lived in certain African countries.

Interestingly, most donors from the UK (or who have lived in the UK) cannot donate in the US over fears of mad cow disease.

I tried to become a bone marrow donor this week, and the same stupid rules apply, in spite of the fact that I'm more at risk for getting a disease from a needlestick at work than I am from my monogamous relationship of 3 years.

Change will come--when white, middle-aged, heterosexual men start being banned from donating.

 

[stormofswords921]

well this is a legacy rule from the early 1980's when HIV was first appearing only in the gay population. the question on the form is "have you had sex with a man after 1977?" when the first cases started to appear and no one had a name for it. i guess they just never bothered to take the question off the list. but the last time I donated blood they asked questions about unprotected sex in general, not just gay sex. there was also a question about unprotected anal sex regardless of orientation. they also ban you from donating if you have traveled ANYWHERE over seas in the last 2 years, at least that's the rule in the U.S. but they certainly aren't harassing you about being gay. if you are comfortable knowing you are negative, then you can simply lie on the question. I haven't donated blood since I started to sleep with men, but that is not because of the blood bank. it's because I simply haven't gotten around to it. but no matter how safe we are, anal sex is pretty much the highest risk sexual activity a person can engage in when it comes to HIV and as a group we are definitely doing a lot more of it then other people.

 

[Críostóir]

I think they haven't taken it off the list, but it's not just a matter of not getting around to it. In the US ending anything that punishes gay people is political suicide. The CDC doesn't DARE take that off the ban list.

We're talking about a country where people actually oppose a completely safe and effective vaccine against HPV, which causes cervical cancer in women, because being vaccinated might "encourage promiscuity." That's right, protecting millions of women (girls now, actually, because the vaccine is most effective when given before puberty) from cervical cancer takes a back seat to assholes sputtering about morality. I hope they all die and burn in hell.

In other words, the inmates are running the asylum in my poor country, and intelligent people from civilized countries would be well advised to steer clear.

 

[pkacrotjs]

As an interesting aside, I'm in the US and I was excluded from donating blood for having been in the UK more than six months (mad cow) before I was excluded for being a gay man (I was a gay virgin at the time...)

 

[Jeimuzu]

If because of the sexual discrimination in goods, trade and services act (I can't remember the exact title, so that's a guess) means that a service offered to a straight man cannot be denied to a gay man, surely the service of having blood taken from you and used (which, despite how odd that sounds, is technically a service, even if it's not you who benefits) has to be extended to gay men, otherwise it's in contravention to that act just passed by Number 10 themselves.

Tony Blair didn't allow the Church to get away with it despite their arguments that it's against their morals, why should he allow himself? There are three reasons I can think of, with reasons why none of them can be used:

• Factual reasons, logical, based on science.
  Pro gay groups have got evidence that wipes out any use of factual reasons.
• Moral reasons, based on some moral code that says such an action is wrong.
  The church had these and were overruled, it would be hypocritical to then cite morality.
• Historical reasons, tradition, based on the system already in place.
  The historical reasons are based purely on religion from back then. Again, overruled by Tony himself on those grounds.

Gawd, when I think about it, I can hardly believe that we seem to spend so much time fighting to be allowed to save lives. This is ridiculous.

Sorry if none of this makes sense. I'm ill, and finding it hard to think straight. Or gay, for that matter.

 

[Críostóir]

As an interesting aside, I'm in the US and I was excluded from donating blood for having been in the UK more than six months (mad cow) before I was excluded for being a gay man (I was a gay virgin at the time...)

Well, being a gay man would not have excluded you if you were a virgin (a real virgin, not just someone who's never had anal sex, which some misguided people count), because the question is "have you had sex with another man since 1977?" If you'd never had sex with another man, you wouldn't be excluded for WANTING to! Even the CDC has to simulate logic better than that.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think it would be political suicide to change the question; it's just a question of how much to change it. Someone suggested 6 months, which is reasonable, but reasonable won't fly in this situation -- but since 1977 is ridiculous.
I think 3 years would work, i.e. be accepted politically. We know enough at this point to be confident that if someone doesn't engage in sex for three years and has no signs, he's clean.
I'd rather see a year, and a question about testing, but I don't think that would make it.

 

[dunno260]

As a person aspiring to be a medical professional in the public health field, I am not too bothered by it. Its not just HIV fears, but some other fears as well. I think in the future the rules will relax as the number of AIDS cases in the US and other developed countries likely decreases reducing it to a risk that the CDC and others are comfortable with. I would love to donate my blood, even though my chances of having AIDS (I haven't had a test) are extremely low due to a single sexual encounter that only involved giving a blow job in high school. Of course, I was also excluded from the list for a while due to my overseas travels.

I don't believe that a group like the CDC in the US is being anti-gay at all but looking at the numbers and determining whatever it is to them that is an acceptable risk, and obviously gay men who are sexually active (well any male who has sexual contact with other males) is a risk that they deem too high. I don't know enough currently about what their standards are, what they probably should be (which is probably what the standards are), and all that stuff, so I can't comment too much, but on this I would tend to side with groups like the CDC.

As for donating your own blood for your surgery, I don't see how that would be an issue at all. I can perhaps see a case potentially being made if you are known to be infected with say AIDS, but even then I somewhat doubt it, though there might be some argument to be made (shifting viral loads, resistance crap, whatever), but again I don't know enough. But if you were negative, or your status wasn't known, and all they knew was that you were a sexually active (or had been) gay or bisexual man, then I would really doubt it being the case.

 

[woaini]

How would they know I'm gay if I don't tell them??

Stupid!

 

[Críostóir]

I don't believe that a group like the CDC in the US is being anti-gay at all but looking at the numbers and determining whatever it is to them that is an acceptable risk, and obviously gay men who are sexually active (well any male who has sexual contact with other males) is a risk that they deem too high. I don't know enough currently about what their standards are, what they probably should be (which is probably what the standards are), and all that stuff, so I can't comment too much, but on this I would tend to side with groups like the CDC.

The CDC's funding is dependent on politics, and they're led by political appointees. The risk they're combating is to their funding and position, not to the public health.

 

[Críostóir]

How would they know I'm gay if I don't tell them??

Stupid!

Some people are too honest to lie. Like me. I'm sorry that you aren't.

 

[blackbeltninja]

Well, I suppose a key question is...

Would you be happy to accept blood from a sexually active and not mongamous gay man?

Responses on a self-addressed envelope to the usual address.

-d-

 

[Piquechampion]

This is just ridiculous.... What about bisexual men, can they give blood? What about lesbians? What about gay for pays?

Besides who would want to give blood to, as another fellow jubber put it, ungrateful swines.