Government response to UK gay man ban on giving blood

[blackbeltninja]

I think that's pretty much World Health Organisation policy.

It sucks but it does make a certain, although finite, amount of sense.

-d-

 

[looseliam]

What a load of bollocks.

 

[treanir]

I still don't get it: if blood is tested for HIV, why would they exclude gay men? I'm willing to accept the argument that (most) gay men fall into a higher-risk category for HIV, but still I don't see why we all should be banned from donating blood.
There are only a few possibilities I can think of:
1. Their testing procedures are faulty i.e. it doesn't always show HIV when it's there. It's easier to ban an entire group of healthy donators than to admit they're at fault and/or try to remedy the situation.
2. The tests are sound, but the system is flawed. Maybe not all new samples of blood are tested, because that would be too expensive?
3. Argument of tradition. 'It has always been so in the past, therefore it must be in the present.'
4. Errrrr... I'll get back to you on this one.

So I've got three possibilities: a royal cock-up, money issues or simply faulty argumentation. Pick one.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's not quite a ban in the U.S.

One reason they don't use blood even though it's checked for HIV is the quickie test used isn't as reliable as the more thorough test, but the thorough test takes longer, and blood can only be kept so long -- so blood from high-risk sectors of the population just don't get used.
A doctor told me that there's a process they use for separating out one portion of the blood and that the stuff they get (plasma?) can be kept longer, so it can have the longer test and they'll be sure it's safe, but no one does it.
Silliness.

 

[trawler69]

Bloody hell I can't even give it away now I feel quite insulted.

 

[Pringle]

Don't get me started - this is one of my biggest issues and it f'ing sucks.

Pure and utter fucking bollox.

I have given blood many times in the past - (I haven't broke ANY rules btw) - I want to continue to give blood for as long as I am healthy to do so, because if any of my nearest and dearest needed it I would bloody well expect in a developed world it would be available.

If my reading of that article is right - up to 20 people out of 3 million donors were found to be HIV and gay . . .

. . . and therefore the other 20 must have been straight and HIV.

So why the distinction. By those stats shouldn't anyone who has had any type of sex EVER be banned from giving blood.

This has got to stop as it continues to fuel the naive opinion some people have about gay men and HIV. The blood is tested for god sake and so although I suppose a risk does still exist it is no more than for anyone else.

Sorry this is a rant but it fucks me off that the yo yo knickered "Essex girl" - with a different "Gary boy" every weekend is considered to be less of risk than me. She probably couldn't spell condom let alone know how to use one.

 

[trawler69]

Thanks Pringle Most eloquently put if I may say so.

 

[Pringle]

Thanks Trawler - I try

I think it expresses well my understated thoughts on the matter

 

[trawler69]

You express my feelings for me but I am fresh out of adrenaline today otherwise I would be appoplectic and effervescent as well!

 

[HartfordGuy]

Yeah that sucks. BUT they quickie test is not 100% reliable. Early infected people will not show a positive on their tests until they have a high enough viral load count. That could take a few months. Up to 6 even. Any viral load count under 400 is "undetectable". So I understand why they are cautious.

But as pointed out, straight people get laid too. And I'm sure many don't use condoms 100% of the time.

Maybe they should just required blood donors to get tested first, then wait 6 months without sex, then get tested again before donating?

I don't know. I just don't think there is an easy answer.

As this virus continues to spread, the problem is only going to get worse. It is great that there are Meds to keep the HIV virus at bay for decades until something else kills you, but what we really need is a cure.

Living longer with HIV only increases the number of years ( and people) the virus can be spread.

Maybe the Red Cross can put up signs: VIRGINS ONLY.

 

[TomahawkEagle]

My attitude would be if they don't wish to take it that's their loss.

 

[luckotheirish]

In the US (and probably most developed countries around the world) many people who are planning major surgery will donate their own blood to a "savings bank" for their own use. At some point well before their procedure, they have blood drawn and it's kept until their surgery. Then during surgery, when/if blood is needed, they get their own blood. It is likely the safest form of transfusion.

So... here's an interesting question...
Would we be allowed to donate our own blood to ourselves?

Or does this ban on us apply to self-donation also?

It seems obvious that the ban shouldn't apply to this method, but bureaucracy is often a stranger to common sense.

 

[Pringle]

My attitude would be if they don't wish to take it that's their loss.

Er - sorry - but your attitude is way off target IMO !!!

Its not their loss is you muppet. You say that as if its like well "fuck the system" then if it isn't going to tolerate me. That is a horse shit approach and wonder if you would be so blase' if it was one of your friends or family that needed some urgent blood and you weren't allowed to do anything to help.

Would you be saying "well that is your problem" in that situation - I very much doubt it.

Its the people who need blood transfusions who lose out. Its the people on operating tables that run the risk.

I don't actually know if we have a blood saving scheme here in the UK but that is an interesting question - I think I will investigate that one and the surronding rules.

Hartford guy makes the most valid point - it is risky stuff whatever - but my point is why detemin it to be more risky because its "gay" HIV compared to "straight" HIV. In the UK it doesn't matter what gay act you have enjoyed you are ruled out of giving blood forever. One man on man blow job prevents you giving blood. Full stop. Them is the rules. One sexual encounter with a man 10 years ago with a condom - means no blood giving.

Yet Tracey can fuck some stranger in a club toilets bare back on a Saturday and be welcomed and thanked for giving her blood on a Monday.

It is right to be careful and cautious with these things but the system needs to be made fair for everyones interest.

end rant

 

[angedelune]

As much as I hate this rule also, after having taken epidemiology I understand the policy, though I don't agree with it.

ALL blood that is gathered is tested, when they gather your blood they run an ELISA test on it. This is the same test they run when you go and get tested for HIV. The ELISA test has a 97% specificity rate. THis means that it has a 3% false negative rate. IE: around 3% of blood tested that comes out negative is actually positive. Now think of it in these terms.

100 people go to give blood. Let's say that 5 of them have HIV, and 95 of them don't. Statistically, you could have about 3 people slip through the radar due to the false negative of the ELISA test. However let's say with the low sample rate that only 1 of them does. That means that one bag of blood is floating around out there with HIV, and that means someone could get infected.

Next scenario, you allow a "high risk" group of people to also give blood. So again 100 people give blood, but now 15 people have HIV, and 85 don't. Again 3% would be false negative, and instead of just 1 person slipping through, with the higher population of HIV in the sample, now you could have 3 that end up in the blood bank. That means that 3 people out there could get HIV.

Now, take and expound that 100 by the multitudes of people that give blood each year. say 10,000,000 people and you see how the number of accidental infections would exponentially rise so it would be just as unsafe to get blood.

I know it sucks, but until the gay community realizes that this IS partly a "gay disease" as we are a high risk population, and they take the steps to eradicate it, things will always be this way. On the same side of the coin however, I wouldn't take blood from people in most places in Africa.

 

[Pringle]

Other than the 97% accuracy of the test you have made up your figures and got them wrong.

If 100 people gave blood and 5 had HIV - statistaically 0.15 people would slip through the net not 3.

The higher risk group of 15 out 100 donors would mean 0.45 people slip through.

This also assumes the people who have HIV don't know? Obviously if you know you have HIV then its not even a question and you don't go to give blood.

What I am saying is the way the "high risk" group is defined needs to be reconsidered. Why not have a rule that says if you have not had any gay relations for over 6 months (read the boards this isn't that uncommon) and show no signs of the virus then you will fall into a safer category.

At the same time they should question more about the sexual habits of anyone who is not safe and regularly partakes in random one night stands.

I would be interested to read the scenarios above with accurate stats though. I think that would be very interesting indeed and may very well get me off my high horse.

 

[Ninja108]

And the people who need blood the most will lose out. Yet again discrimination takes place over compassion

 

[angedelune]

Other than the 97% accuracy of the test you have made up your figures and got them wrong.

If 100 people gave blood and 5 had HIV - statistaically 0.15 people would slip through the net not 3.

The higher risk group of 15 out 100 donors would mean 0.45 people slip through.

This also assumes the people who have HIV don't know? Obviously if you know you have HIV then its not even a question and you don't go to give blood.

What I am saying is the way the "high risk" group is defined needs to be reconsidered. Why not have a rule that says if you have not had any gay relations for over 6 months (read the boards this isn't that uncommon) and show no signs of the virus then you will fall into a safer category.

At the same time they should question more about the sexual habits of anyone who is not safe and regularly partakes in random one night stands.

I would be interested to read the scenarios above with accurate stats though. I think that would be very interesting indeed and may very well get me off my high horse.

I was over simplifying the math for the sake of making a point. The more people you have in a group that are "higher risk" the more people you are going to have with the disease, and while I agree that you can very well put rules and stipulations on when gay people may or may not give blood, and wether or not they have shown signs of the viral infection or not this is just splitting hairs. It is easier for an organization just to say "your group as a whole is more promiscuous and more at risk, therefore instead of trying to determine your individual risk, we shall ban all of you." Doesn't make it right, but again it statistically makes sense.

 

[duncann]

It isn't only the UK that has this policy, it's the policy in many countries, including, I believe, the USA, Australia, Ireland and South Africa. It isn't actually a ban in the UK as much as a request to gay men to self-select and decline to donate - it's not as if there is a register of homosexuals, one's sexuality is private and not proveable without a great deal of effort, if at all - so how would they know? All the blood is tested and heat-/other- treated to clear it for all sorts of conditions, not just HIV, and any person in any group might be HIV positive and not know it, so the thinking is illogical.

I think gay men were originally 'banned' to make the rest of the public feel safer if receiving a transfusion and to encourage them to donate blood as 20+ years ago there was confusion that if you donated blood you might catch HIV in the process and the number of donors crashed.

The government's figures show that the fastest growing group of people with HIV in the UK, and the majority of ALL new cases for the last few years, are African immigrants, who enter into the UK from a continent where HIV and AIDS are rife, yet can donate as much blood as they like. However, you will not find anyone in any political party or position of authority who will say that Africans (for which read black people) should be banned from donating blood, that would smack of grotesque political incorrectness and racism. However, it is apparently ok to tar all gay men with the brush of HIV and AIDS and 'ban' them. I think that is what is iniquitous - other groups are just as likely or more likely to communicate diseases through blood transmission but political correctness obliges them not to be singled out.

 

[luckotheirish]

I think angedelune has a point.

I also don't agree with the ban. However, the argument that the WHO and many governments are using is that there is a disproportionately high number of gay men who test positive for HIV and HepB.

In the example Joe gave in his OP, as many as 1/2 of the HIV-pos results (or 50%) found in the donated blood came from gay men. If we make up about 5% of the total population, that means that the proportion of gay men with infected blood was 10 times higher than our representation in the population. Why are we still overrepresented on this issue? TWENTY SIX years later... how can a stat like this exist?? What population should know better than we? Agreed we aren't the fastest growing demographic in infections, but it's hard to understand why we're still so overrepresented. Gay men are plenty smart enough to know how to stop this. We of all people should be leading the WORLD in conquering this. We should be the most UNDERrepresented group, right?

Having laid out their argument, however, I think this kind of "profiling" is no different and no more justified than any form of racial profiling that goes on. Just ask anyone in the US who even looks Arab.

This is guilt by association. I am not accountable for the actions of my brothers. I'm guessing that most gay men know how to significantly reduce their risk for HIV and HepB. Certainly not all people get infected with HIV, HepB, or other blood-borne diseases through unprotected sex. But the fact remains that a great many cases ARE contracted through unsafe sex practices. Each of us has the right to live our own lives as we choose. But we must also accept that some choices come with danger and consequences. Those who choose to bareback outside of strict monogamy (often with as many as hundreds or thousands of anonymous partners) make it more difficult for someone who would like to donate blood.

None of us likes to be painted with the broad brush of stereotyping, least of all this one. Society will not let go of this as "Gay Disease" until stats like these disappear - whether it's fair or not.

We are all profiled based upon the actions of those who decide the personal gratification of barebacking with whomever is more important than anyone's safety, including their own.

 

[Críostóir]

Gay men are not permitted to give blood in the US at all. CDC rule. Not "use my blood for research," just "get outta here you faggot."

This makes me furious even though I can't give blood personally (I have a weird reaction to it that almost killed me the last time I tried).