Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Gay Men Cant Give Blood Unless....
34 Answers
they have been monogomous for 12ths.
I have never heard of this before but it's true.Pretty appalling and discriminatory given they are appealing for Donors at the moment.
So by my reckoning, if a gay man has been in a stable loving relationship for several years his blood would be refused..
However a straight man ,who is promiscuous,would be welcomed.
This can't be allowed surely? Your views would be welcome.
http://
I have never heard of this before but it's true.Pretty appalling and discriminatory given they are appealing for Donors at the moment.
So by my reckoning, if a gay man has been in a stable loving relationship for several years his blood would be refused..
However a straight man ,who is promiscuous,would be welcomed.
This can't be allowed surely? Your views would be welcome.
http://
Answers
Argue as much as you like, it is arrant homophobia: no other countries in the West have a problem with welcoming gay men to give blood. All blood is tested anyway. And the whole AIDS argument one is a dangerously dated one. Anyone can be promiscuous; anyone can be exposed to disease, promiscuous or not. This is the source of much hatred and anger in the gay...
15:53 Wed 05th Jun 2013
taken from your link
"Clearly any transmission would be one too many and the purpose of blood donor selection criteria, alongside other safety measures, is to minimise any potential harm to recipients of blood donations. All groups that are excluded or deferred from blood donation have been assessed as being at a statistically increased risk of carrying blood-borne viruses.
The change brings the criterion for men who have had sex with men in line with those for the majority of other groups that are deferred from blood donation for 12 months due to the risks of infection associated with sexual behaviours. We appreciate that it can be disappointing for anyone who wishes to donate blood but is not able to meet the donor selection criteria. The criteria are based on complex assessments of risk and must by their nature be based on evidence and statistics that are recorded at a population level. Such an approach results in assessments of certain groups as being at a higher risk than others of carrying blood-borne infections, and can make individuals that are deferred from donation feel they are being placed into a "category" even if they believe their own sexual behaviour and risk-taking would not be a risk to the blood supply."
also
"Blood donation works on the principles of kindness and mutual trust and we ask all potential and existing donors to adhere to the blood donor selection criteria by providing completely honest answers to all the questions asked, both for the protection of their own health and that of others. Donor selection criteria that are proportionate and based purely on evidence are necessary to help ensure that donors comply with the health check process. Compliance with all donor selection criteria is crucial in order to ensure the continued safety of the blood supply. Anyone may require a blood transfusion in the future and it is in the best interests of us all to ensure that we strive to maintain blood safety."
that answers it for me....
"Clearly any transmission would be one too many and the purpose of blood donor selection criteria, alongside other safety measures, is to minimise any potential harm to recipients of blood donations. All groups that are excluded or deferred from blood donation have been assessed as being at a statistically increased risk of carrying blood-borne viruses.
The change brings the criterion for men who have had sex with men in line with those for the majority of other groups that are deferred from blood donation for 12 months due to the risks of infection associated with sexual behaviours. We appreciate that it can be disappointing for anyone who wishes to donate blood but is not able to meet the donor selection criteria. The criteria are based on complex assessments of risk and must by their nature be based on evidence and statistics that are recorded at a population level. Such an approach results in assessments of certain groups as being at a higher risk than others of carrying blood-borne infections, and can make individuals that are deferred from donation feel they are being placed into a "category" even if they believe their own sexual behaviour and risk-taking would not be a risk to the blood supply."
also
"Blood donation works on the principles of kindness and mutual trust and we ask all potential and existing donors to adhere to the blood donor selection criteria by providing completely honest answers to all the questions asked, both for the protection of their own health and that of others. Donor selection criteria that are proportionate and based purely on evidence are necessary to help ensure that donors comply with the health check process. Compliance with all donor selection criteria is crucial in order to ensure the continued safety of the blood supply. Anyone may require a blood transfusion in the future and it is in the best interests of us all to ensure that we strive to maintain blood safety."
that answers it for me....
Yes jno...celibate !
woofgang, thank you.However I did read the read through the entire site and the criteria for donating blood.
That's why I was left wondering about the two specific points I made in my op.
Why would gay men in a long term monogamous relationship be barred from giving blood.Surely that's discrimination to a degree, suggesting all gay men are promiscuous.
What about the straight guy who sleeps around and catches STD's and doesn't bother getting them treated?
I'm all for all precautions being taken, that really wasn't the angle I was coming from.
woofgang, thank you.However I did read the read through the entire site and the criteria for donating blood.
That's why I was left wondering about the two specific points I made in my op.
Why would gay men in a long term monogamous relationship be barred from giving blood.Surely that's discrimination to a degree, suggesting all gay men are promiscuous.
What about the straight guy who sleeps around and catches STD's and doesn't bother getting them treated?
I'm all for all precautions being taken, that really wasn't the angle I was coming from.
I was in the same relationship for ten years, my partner died in 2010 of a heart attack, but a couple of years prior I tried to give blood and was refused point blank because I was gay. I was invited to give blood again when they changed their rules, but I choose not to, and will continue not doing so in protest.
I was told at the time it was simply because I was gay. In the last twenty years, bar the two since I lost my second partner, I have had only two partners: the first committed suicide rather than end his life as a cabbage drooling in a corner, after an operation to remove a brain tumour the surgeons left half of it there or it would have killed him earlier.
It really is all about HIV and implied risk.
The two main modes of transmission of HIV is through unprotected penetrative sex and IV drug abuse.
In 2011, there was an estimated 96.000 people with HIV in the UK. Prevalence is around 1.5 people per thousand in the general adult population, but that increases drastically in that cohort of the population Men who have sex with Men (MSM) - it rises to 47 cases per 1000.
HIV can have a very long latency period, where it lies dormant within the body - residing principally within the white blood cells.
Our ability to detect HIV infection has improved markedly over the last couple of decades, from an Antibody test, to an Antigen test and more. Even the most modern and sensitive HIV tests are not infallible however.
This does mean that a unit of blood can be donated, can be screened and found negative, but still have the potential to infect the recipient.
It is a simple fact therefore that MSM donors carry the highest potential risk of HIV transmission. A declaration of celibacy for a 12 month period does reduce that risk a great deal.
So - It is an example of an exercise of the precautionary principle. Not meant to be offensively discriminatory, just a fact of life.......
HIV may no longer be viewed as a death sentence as it once was, with the use of a cocktail of antiviral drugs, and its transmission can be largely prevented by the use of safe sex - but it is still a serious risk, and the NHSBT have an obligation to their recipients to ensure that the blood supply is as safe as possible....
As for donating whilst considered underweight - application of the precautionary principle again. Someone underweight can ill- afford the donation of a unit of blood.
The two main modes of transmission of HIV is through unprotected penetrative sex and IV drug abuse.
In 2011, there was an estimated 96.000 people with HIV in the UK. Prevalence is around 1.5 people per thousand in the general adult population, but that increases drastically in that cohort of the population Men who have sex with Men (MSM) - it rises to 47 cases per 1000.
HIV can have a very long latency period, where it lies dormant within the body - residing principally within the white blood cells.
Our ability to detect HIV infection has improved markedly over the last couple of decades, from an Antibody test, to an Antigen test and more. Even the most modern and sensitive HIV tests are not infallible however.
This does mean that a unit of blood can be donated, can be screened and found negative, but still have the potential to infect the recipient.
It is a simple fact therefore that MSM donors carry the highest potential risk of HIV transmission. A declaration of celibacy for a 12 month period does reduce that risk a great deal.
So - It is an example of an exercise of the precautionary principle. Not meant to be offensively discriminatory, just a fact of life.......
HIV may no longer be viewed as a death sentence as it once was, with the use of a cocktail of antiviral drugs, and its transmission can be largely prevented by the use of safe sex - but it is still a serious risk, and the NHSBT have an obligation to their recipients to ensure that the blood supply is as safe as possible....
As for donating whilst considered underweight - application of the precautionary principle again. Someone underweight can ill- afford the donation of a unit of blood.
Would a gay person of either gender want to take the risk if getting HIV from a blood transfusion?
kylesmum, the reason that I italicised part of my post in part answers your question. The information on which the risk assessment is based is collected at a population wide level and the decision is also made at that level. Assuming that the facts are correct and the risk assessment is proportionate, then the decision IMO is unfortunate but correct.
There has been another post on here asking why we as a nation are wary of scientific fact and (I paraphrase here) will wilfully ignore it.
Should we wilfully ignore a fact(if it is correct of course) because it doesn't fit in with our social mores, however morally correct they may be?
kylesmum, the reason that I italicised part of my post in part answers your question. The information on which the risk assessment is based is collected at a population wide level and the decision is also made at that level. Assuming that the facts are correct and the risk assessment is proportionate, then the decision IMO is unfortunate but correct.
There has been another post on here asking why we as a nation are wary of scientific fact and (I paraphrase here) will wilfully ignore it.
Should we wilfully ignore a fact(if it is correct of course) because it doesn't fit in with our social mores, however morally correct they may be?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.