Blood Donor Ban On Gays Lifted.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....-havent-sex-year.html

Is this a wise move, or just a ridiculous decision due to the fact that it is up to the honesty of the donor to state they have not had sex for a year?

[sandyRoe]

Remember back in Thatcher's time when it was cheaper to buy Factor 8 from our American cousins? Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people here in the UK were infected because it was cheaper to look abroad for supplies. In America they sell their blood so it's the very poor who 'donate'.

[emmie]

sandroe are you referring to this.
http://en.wikipedia.o...philia_blood_products

[andy-hughes]

Since AOG frames his question with the phrase 'ridiculous decision' - it is clear from which position he approaches this debate.

I for one am perfectly happy to have the Health Service accept blood from gay men on the basis that it is tested for STD's before use.

Should anyone be of a mind to attempt to infect a complete stranger by donating infected blood, I hardly think that lying on a form would belikely to stand in their way - so the notion of 'honesty' really doesn't carry weight - wheras the perceived discrimination against perfectly healthy homosexuals certainly does.

[sandyRoe]

That's it, EM10

[emmie]

sandyroe, perhaps you should read through it, and see who was at fault.
and how many countries were involved, it's pretty horrible.

[sandyRoe]

That Wiki article doesn't seem to mention the UK. This from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6562909.stm
Maybe there was no other source other than the USA drug companies.

[LazyGun]

1. The fingerprick screening test you get at donation is a simple if crude measure of your haemoglobin level.

2. The screening process for donors in this country has always relied on self assessment and self exclusion if you belonged to a nominated high risk group. Initially, when we were only able to screen for the HIV antibody, it made sense to exclude IV drug abusers and homosexuals, since both practices were at high risk of contractiing/transmitting the virus. HIV testing has improved immeasurably over the subsequent years, particularly with the introduction of HIV antigen screening, since this reduced the window of latency tremendously. ( Pattern - infection - Antigen presence - some months later Antibody development). NHSB&T are applying the precautionary principle by requesting a 12 month abstinence period.

We have always had a chronic shortage of blood and blood donors in this country. The principle of an altruistic donation service has been shown again and again to offer a much reduced risk of transmissible disease, but it does limit the stock levels. In the UK, a population of 60 million or so, we are reliant on around 1.5 million dedicated, caring and altruistic donors, so the benefits of allowing gay men to donate should be evident for all.

The screening process, the processing of units of blood themselves, now make it an infinitesimal risk of HIV transmission via a unit of blood.

3. Haemophiliacs. The treatment of haemophiliacs in this country by successive governments has been nothing short of scandalous. The risks of HIV and Hepatitis transmission were well known, but they went ahead anyway - and subsequent governments have dragged their heels and denied responsibility and resisted calls for a change in leglislation in the hope, it seems to me, that those infected would die before their claims could be properly adjudicated and damages fairly awarded. Shameful behaviour by a supposedly civilised country.

[JonnyBoy12]

Could you force peop;e to give blood at gun point then? Would that not solve the problem? How else can we get new donors otherwise?

[sandyRoe]

Better to rely on decent people giving blood that go down the American path of paying people.
I believe for a while they refused people who had recently had a tattoo from donating. Is that still in force?

[4getmenot]

I once asked why gays couldnt give blood and was told its the way they have sex and that because it is anal there can be more tearing of the skin to contract aids. Sorry but if that is the reason there are plenty of hetrosexual people who do it that way sometimes

[Kromovaracun]

"its the way they have sex and that because it is anal there can be more tearing of the skin to contract aids"

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that while it's true that anal sex is more risky if unprotected*, it's really not much worse if it's protected. Plus while most do, not all gay men have anal sex and as you say plenty of heterosexuals do it too.

*As an aside, this doesn't necessarily mean that vaginal sex is 100% safe unprotected - it isn't. You can still contract HIV and other STIs from unprotected vaginal sex.

[4getmenot]

exactly!! thats what I'm saying there should be no difference between homesexuals giving blood and hetros

[campbellking]

I'm a blood donor (just got my 50th donation done) and there is absolutely nothing stopping me from lying on the 'unprotected sex' bit of the form. Why should I be considered to be any more honest just because I am female and heterosexual?

[sara3]

campbellking, I always lie about that "paying for sex" question ;o)

[joko]

i agree it was stupid ban in the first place...an irrational knee jerk reaction to the start of the aids epidemic...

[rov1100]

There are 50+ million who have contacted aids. If the figure is so high is because one of the partners has not told his other half. Makes you wonder if they can be relied to tell the truth about their sexual affairs (ie nosex for 12 months)

[anotheoldgit]

Andy-Hughes

I do not know if anyone appointed you to ask for my apologies to other ABers.

But if you read his post again he was (if not lying) telling untruths about me, so he should have apologised to me.

/// apart from the fact that you keep choosing snippets from the Daily Mail which support your prejudices and post them in the vain hope that people will agree with you.///

By the very fact that he accused me of doing something i had not done, is in anyone's book telling untruths ie lying.

If on AB, I were to accuse you Andy of say shoplifting, and even though I convinced myself you had been, and of course you hadn't, I would be also be lying about you.

But in future please just address the post in general, and do not set yourself up as a self appointed AnswerBank adjudicator, as one can get oneself in trouble taking that stance.

[andy-hughes]

No, no-one appointed me as an adjudiactor, but then again, no-one appointed you as a agitator - we are what we are.

As I have pointed out - telling an untruth and lying are not the same thing, hence my post.

If you accused me of shop-lifting, and you believed it to be true, then it would be truth as you see it, and therefore you are not lying. If the fact is proved otherwise, then you would be wrong in your assertion, which still does not negate the fact that you believed your statement to be true.

The important distinction is not the veracity of the statement, but the poter's belief in its veracity - if mike believed his post to be true, he is not lying, although he may indeed be telling an untruth. It is a fine difference, but a difference none the less.

If I do choose to set myself up as an Answerbank adjudicator - which of course I do not, it is for the Ed to take issue over it - as has been done over your agitating.

I have not been castigated on the site by the Ed., youhave, which makes your taking of the moral high ground in this instance rather hypocritical - but I shall take it as the standard wind-up of an agitator, and move on.

[JonnyBoy12]

Sorry to butt in here, rov1100. 50 million who have full blown AIDS? Where did you get that figure from? I thought that it was 'only' 40 million who had HIV and not full blown AIDS.

I hope noone on here has it? Can anyone here put me right?