Donating Blood

[Potter]

Then make it publically known and give them a reason to be outraged. Then again, there's probably a good section of the population that's thankful they won't be getting gay blood... sigh...

[chinpokomaster]

I give blood on one simple basis - I'd be wanting some if I needed it and I'd be bloody thankful people gave it. I don't believe in taking out on sick people the problems inflicted by the government. I think it's like coming home from a stressful day at work and beating your wife.

[chinpokomaster]

It's not them that ultimately want it, though. There are children dying for want of blood donors.

[chibi curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by chinpokomaster

It's not them that ultimately want it, though. There are children dying for want of blood donors.

And their deaths are on the consciences of those who choose to turn away healthy donors because they're gay or bisexual men, or women who have sex with them.

[EyesOfTheWorld]

Originally Posted by chibi curmudgeon

And their deaths are on the consciences of those who choose to turn away healthy donors because they're gay or bisexual men, or women who have sex with them.

Or IV drug users, tattoo fans or anyone who has sex with them. In some areas even marijuana smokers

[chinpokomaster]

Originally Posted by chibi curmudgeon

And their deaths are on the consciences of those who choose to turn away healthy donors because they're gay or bisexual men, or women who have sex with them.

Who cares whose consciences they're on? It's not a blame game between you and the government so one of you can feel smug and morally absolved. People are dying.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Valid point.

[chibi curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by chinpokomaster

Who cares whose consciences they're on? It's not a blame game between you and the government so one of you can feel smug and morally absolved. People are dying.

I get this, and this is why I said I'm kind of ambivalent about the whole idea of refusing to donate. I've told people at the Red Cross, etc., before that I'd love to donate but am not allowed to, and explained why. And they're not happy with the policy, either.

[chinpokomaster]

Ah, well if you're not allowed to, that's different. It's those who choose not to on the principle that some aren't allowed to that I don't understand.

[chibi curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by chinpokomaster

Ah, well if you're not allowed to, that's different. It's those who choose not to on the principle that some aren't allowed to that I don't understand.

Thing is, I could lie. I'm not under oath and I'm not hooked up to a polygraph. When they ask me "Do you have sex with men who have sex with men?" I can say no. I could also say "why does it matter?" Or "none of your damn business." But they'd interpret that as a yes.

Point is, I shouldn't have to lie to help people. But I agree that it's the right thing to do.

[corvardus]

Who is excluded from giving blood?
WHO, WHAT, WHY?

A lifetime ban on gay and bisexual men from giving blood is under review, following calls from campaigners that the policy is unfair and misplaced. So which groups are prevented from donating on grounds of sexual behaviour?


The public is often being urged to give blood, to help those that need it, but the adverts are not directed at those deemed too high-risk to donate.

People are banned from giving blood for a variety of health reasons such as having had a blood transfusion after 1980 or having a family member with CJD. But rules which govern giving blood simply because of who you have sex with are not universally accepted by those who are banned.

A man is prevented from giving blood if he has ever had sex with another man, even if that happened decades ago and he has recently tested negative for sexually transmitted diseases like HIV.

A woman who once worked as a prostitute is also banned for life from donating, while anyone who has had sex with anyone who has been sexually active in parts of the world with high HIV rates, like sub-Saharan Africa, cannot donate for 12 months.

A review is under way to look again at these rules. The government's advisory committee on the safety of blood, tissues and organs (SaBTO) is holding a public consultation meeting in London as part of that process.

Although there are four different blood services across the UK, the same rules apply and they will all be subject to the findings of the advisory committee, if its recommendations are followed.

According to those rules, the following groups are among those that have a lifetime ban on giving blood:

• any man who has had sex with another man, even safe sex using a condom
• anyone who has ever worked as a prostitute
• anyone who has injected themselves with drugs - even once
• anyone who has ever had syphilis, human T-lymphotropic virus, hepatitis B or C

Potential donors are also banned for 12 months after having had sex with:

• a man who has had sex with another man (if you're a female)
• a prostitute
• anyone who has ever injected themselves with drugs
• anyone with haemophilia or a related blood clotting disorder, who has received clotting factor concentrates
• anyone of any race who has been sexually active in parts of the world where Aids/HIV is very common

And there are shorter term restrictions on people who have visited malarial areas.

The National Blood Service for England and North Wales says it has to exclude groups known to present a particularly high risk of blood-borne viruses, to reduce the risk of infected blood entering the blood supply.
Although all blood is screened, a small number of infected donations may be missed because there is a period of time between getting the infection and the test showing a positive result, its guidelines say.

Condoms reduce the risk of infection but don't eliminate it, they say, and men who have sex with men account for 63% of HIV diagnoses where the infection was likely to have been acquired in the UK. The risk of HIV-infected blood entering the blood supply would increase five-fold if the ban was lifted.

But gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell says a government that opposes homophobic discrimination cannot possibly uphold the ban. "It is based on the stererotyped, irrational, bigoted and unscientific assumption that any man who has had oral or anal sex with another man - even just once 40 years ago with a condom - is high risk for HIV. This is nonsense. "The truth is that most gay and bisexual men do not have HIV and will never have HIV. Their blood is safe."

A spokesman for the Department of Health said the committee would publish its findings in 2010.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...ne/8327650.stm
Published: 2009/10/27

Reputation Comments on this post:

This article is an excellent addition to the thread

[Potter]

DyingTomorrow: Please read corvardus's post, as that will explain the current rules.

[dyingtomorrow]

Originally Posted by Potter

DyingTomorrow: Please read corvardus's post, as that will explain the current rules.

I read the many posts/articles about the rules in this thread and still don't understand the rationale. If the point is risk, why not have that be the true factor, not stereotypes?

Most of my gay friends who aren't in committed relationships get tested regularly for disease. I don't even know one straight friend who does the same. Not to lump gays in with IV users, but it is much the same for that group too. They are a lot more likely to know if they have something than your average straight bar-going male who has had unprotected sex with scores of women, and done God knows what other risky things that "party" people tend to do no matter what their orientation or ancillary lifestyle.

I don't mean someone who has been tested 5 months ago and has been using since. I mean someone who was an IV user, say, a couple years ago, and has been tested a long time after and is clean. Recent use, even a couple years ago, I can understand banning. But a permanent ban for gays, no matter their situation and precautions, and IV users doesn't make sense to me.

In the same kin, why would only gay men be excluded from it? Because of anal sex? Because they are assumed to be promiscuous? Why not add women who have had unprotected anal sex too? Or "sluts"?

I don't know if you stand by your original statement of not caring because of the bigotry, but I would not blame you one iota if you do.

[TinfoilxTouch]

I give blood at least every 8 weeks. I am on benzos, ADHD drugs, and anti-depressants. They ask about the things that would really make the blood unusable during the prescreening, and none of these come up.

Number one, most of the drugs people here talk about are not something that causes recirculation in the bloodstream for very long, so unless you hit a bong and take a few lines while waiting to get into the line for the donation van, most of whatever you prefer has already hit your kidneys, liver, brain and so forth. Second, so okay, I took 3mg of Valium over the previous 24hours. Your body contains 8-10 pints of blood. So, if I took all three doses at once (instead of the 8 hours apart) and then donated, the recipient might get 3mg of valium?

Honestly, everyone who can donate should. They know how to screen for what is not usable. If you know you’re possibly infected with an STD please do not donate, but if you know you’re 100% clean please, please go ahead. My sister needed 3 pints of blood after someone ran a red light. My favorite musician needed a marrow donor to survive chemo for leukemia.

I donate blood 5-10 times a year and am on the marrow donor list. I’m also a organ donor. Don’t assume just because you take more than Advil that you can’t still save a life.