Lifetime ban on blood donation, lifted.

[selfinflikted]

Well, it's at least a step in the right direction.

Parts of UK to lift lifetime ban on gay men donating blood – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Strickly speaking gay people (particularly lesbians) were always allowed to donate.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Step in the right direction? Not going to make the right friends with this statement, I bet, but here goes:

I believe this is as far as restrictions should be lifted when it concerns MSM.


Honestly, given the high risk of infection even at this point, a fairly stringent regulation is needed; 12 months gives the best bet that the person will know if they have been infected or not, while any (or at least much) under that is still in the vague area of incubation time for many people carrying the virus (while not knowing they are doing so).

Putting them in the same placing as most other high risk sexual groups [those having sex with prostitutes, with IV drug (ab)users, and those who have sex with MSM] seems a very good step toward both health and equality. They are allowed, under the stipulations, to give blood [which is sorely needed, if it is anything like the US with donation rates] but does not discriminate [the reason is sound and true].

 

[selfinflikted]

Strickly speaking gay people (particularly lesbians) were always allowed to donate.

Not in the U.S.

 

[selfinflikted]

Step in the right direction? Not going to make the right friends with this statement, I bet, but here goes:

I believe this is as far as restrictions should be lifted when it concerns MSM.


Honestly, given the high risk of infection even at this point, a fairly stringent regulation is needed; 12 months gives the best bet that the person will know if they have been infected or not, while any (or at least much) under that is still in the vague area of incubation time for many people carrying the virus (while not knowing they are doing so).

Putting them in the same placing as most other high risk sexual groups [those having sex with prostitutes, with IV drug (ab)users, and those who have sex with MSM] seems a very good step toward both health and equality. They are allowed, under the stipulations, to give blood [which is sorely needed, if it is anything like the US with donation rates] but does not discriminate [the reason is sound and true].

What about gay men who are in monogamous relationships?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Not in the U.S.

Yes, in the US. The ban only applies to MSM (whom have had sexual contact with another man since 1977), not lesbians.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

What about gay men who are in monogamous relationships?

When answering a questionnaire you have to rely on the person being honest, which is why they still test donor's blood even if they've answered every question correctly.

There's no blood test to see whether he is monogamous or not. His word means nothing.

 

[selfinflikted]

Yes, in the US. The ban only applies to MSM (whom have had sexual contact with another man since 1977), not lesbians.

Right. She said particularly lesbians, not only lesbians.

 

[selfinflikted]

When answering a questionnaire you have to rely on the person being honest, which is why they still test donor's blood even if they've answered every question correctly.

There's no blood test to see whether he is monogamous or not. His word means nothing.

So, if they test the blood anyways...

See my point?

 

[Daniel25]

perhaps in another 20 years they will be brave enough to ignore all epidemiological evidence.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

What about gay men who are in monogamous relationships?

Sadly, regardless of monogamy, the risk is still greater than with heterosexual couples. I would love to say otherwise, but...

I hate to be the bad guy, but the rates of cheating/extra-relational sex (in ALL relationships) is pretty darned high: how can a simple "are you monogamous" even begin to determine if the person can donate? [The person often may not know the other person is cheating on them, which means all parties are at risk.]

While all sexualities face the issue of HIV/AIDS, gay men are the highest infected grouping in the developed world even today. Asking them to take the same guide rules as other higher risk groups is not unfair, or unwarranted.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

So, if they test the blood anyways...

See my point?

As far as I know, no blood donation group recommends using their service to test whether you have a problem. They aren't there for our health - they're there for the health of those recieving blood.

 

[Daniel25]

So, if they test the blood anyways...

See my point?

they test batches, its an old statistics problem actually (calculating the size of the batches to minimize costs).

 

[Fenny the Fox]

So, if they test the blood anyways...

See my point?

HIV/AIDS tests are not 100%, or even close.

Given the multiple month window period, false negatives are prevalent. Different types of tests have different windows, but all are rather long.

Even past that window, it is far from unheard of to test false negative (though better now than in times past).

Why take the risk of infecting a person through blood tested false negative if you don't have to?

[And yes, obviously, a person can easily lie about being past 12 months, or being purely heterosexual, etc. But I want to think more people will be honest than not (by a large majority, I hope).]

 

[selfinflikted]

As far as I know, no blood donation group recommends using their service to test whether you have a problem. They're aren't their for our health - they're there for the health of those recieving blood.

That's not what I mean.

I just find it highly disappointing that I cannot give blood, even though I am in a monogamous relationship (and have only ever been in monogamous relationships) and have been tested regularly (negative on all fronts). Yet, regardless of what I put on the questionaire, they test the blood anyway (and they should). So what is the point in a ban on certain people, if the donations are tested? I completely understand the 'waiting period', as is a particularly good measure where public safety is concerned. But an all-out ban? I can't help but think the motivations for this lie elsewhere.

 

[Daniel25]

you think there is a conspiracy against gay blood?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

No, just that the current eligibility guides are outdated and [bordering on] discriminatory.

 

[selfinflikted]

HIV/AIDS tests are not 100%, or even close.

Given the multiple month window period, false negatives are prevalent. Different types of tests have different windows, but all are rather long.

Even past that window, it is far from unheard of to test false negative (though better now than in times past).

Why take the risk of infecting a person through blood tested false negative if you don't have to?

[And yes, obviously, a person can easily lie about being past 12 months, or being purely heterosexual, etc. But I want to think more people will be honest than not (by a large majority, I hope).]

I was under the impression that the tests are much improved. I remember reading that the 'window' period was anywhere from a few weeks to six months - not 12 months. Perhaps I am mistaken, I'll do more research.

 

[selfinflikted]

you think there is a conspiracy against gay blood?

What Fenny said.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

That's not what I mean.

I just find it highly disappointing that I cannot give blood, even though I am in a monogamous relationship (and have only ever been in monogamous relationships) and have been tested regularly (negative on all fronts). Yet, regardless of what I put on the questionaire, they test the blood anyway (and they should). So what is the point in a ban on certain people, if the donations are tested? I completely understand the 'waiting period', as is a particularly good measure where public safety is concerned. But an all-out ban? I can't help but think the motivations for this lie elsewhere.

I'm sorry to be so blunt but I'm afraid your personal feelings on the subject don't matter. This is about the health of other people - people who already sick or badly injured - not whether you feel you're being "discriminated" against.

Lesbians are able to give blood because there are fewer diseases and disorders associated with female homosexuality than there are for male homosexuality, so it's unlikely the blood services have some secret anti-gay agenda.

Again, sorry to be so blunt. But there are plenty of other people who may never give blood either, and many of the reasons aren't their fault.