1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LGBT News UK review of gay blood bars

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by 741852963, Nov 26, 2015.

  1. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Rules banning gay and bisexual men from giving blood to be reviewed | Politics | The Guardian

    I think this is a good news.

    I used to actually support such a ban being place, thinking that quality of blood nd patient safety justified it's presense. Now I realise that the ban is pretty discriminatory and pointless too.

    Currently men who have had sex with men (or women who have had sex with such a man) in the last 12 months are banned. Similarly people who have had sex with sex workers, had sex in certain high-risk countries or injected themselves are also banned.

    I do appreciate statistically gay men might be a high-risk group, but to essentially ring fence every gay man as as big a risk as a heroin addict or prostitute punter is a pretty offensive and damaging generalisation really. Also, how can it be said to not be discriminatory or "only based on patient interest" when black women are statistically as big a risk as sexually active gay men yet face no bars. You can't have one rule for one group and then claim it isn't politically driven. I think its all based on the fears from the 80s-90s. Things were different then, HIV was not properly understood (in terms of side effects and diagnosis), there wasn't the same screening carried out, and we thought it was a gay only disease.

    Additionally, what is the point in filtering out such men (or women), when purely heterosexual donors are not thoroughly quizzed on their own habits (which may put them at even greater risk). Why should a monogamous gay couple who use condoms be barred yet say, a student who has drunken condomless one night stands with women be allowed to give as much as he likes?

    Really what I think we should have:
    -Thorough screening for all donors, including questions about sexual health and condom use
    -At worst, a reduction from the 12 month rule to a 3-4 month HIV test rule*

    *HIV is detectable after 3months, so we should at least allow gay men to donate if they have been with the same sexual partner for 3months or more, or have not had sex for 3 months or more. Not allowing any gay men who have penetrative sex, or even those who have not had sex for 3-12months as at present is overkill. All blood is thoroguhly screened anyway - the chances of HIV transmission via blood donor today are minimal, about 1 in 6.5million (plus consider only half a mill receive them each year). And to be honest I'd much rather run that risk (with an increased supply of blood donors) than end up dead from blood loss.

    http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Blood-transfusion/Pages/Risks.aspx
     
    #1 741852963, Nov 26, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2015
  2. Secrets5

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,964
    Likes Received:
    77
    Location:
    UK
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Hello,

    A woman came into school to talk and whilst gay men in the 'gay' group most do have HIV, if you take the entire 'sexuality' group - it's actually more 'straight' group that have it.

    In terms of 'sexuality' group -

    1/4 of gay people HIV +
    3/4 of straight people HIV +

    Hope this helps.
     
    #2 Secrets5, Nov 26, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2015
  3. Andrew99

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2013
    Messages:
    3,402
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    That's great news! I'll never donate blood because I hate needles but I think that this ban should be overturned and I think it would be great for those with rare blood types.
     
  4. Im Hazel

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2015
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Rural England
    Yay! I wouldn't mind donating blood.
     
  5. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    It is actually the most common bloodtype (O) in highest demand as O+ can be received safely by O+, A+, B+ and AB+ individuals (most people), and O- blood can be received by pretty much anyone (O- people are "universal" donors). As such it is the "go to" type to be used in emergencies and stocks fall quickly as a result.

    But yes, by increasing the number of donors both those with common blood types AND those with less common blood types would benefit by an increase in O donors and/or those with similar to their own.

    Just as an interesting fact you also have a type called "Bombay blood". This blood type is incredibly rare (only a few million in the world have it), and people with this can only receive the same blood (they cannot even take O- blood).

    ---------- Post added 27th Nov 2015 at 10:33 AM ----------

    I think that is a fair point. We already allow pretty much most fully heterosexual practicising individuals donate blood, regardless of promiscuity or how safe their sex is.

    When you consider heterosexual people make up 90-97% (depending on which statistic you believe) of the population, even if gay people were at higher risk as a group, heterosexuals would be the bigger worry due to their numbers.

    Lets say purely for example we have 100 male blood donors and 90% are straight, 10% are gay. And let us be crazy for a minute and say 3/4 of gay men were at risk of having HIV, whilst only 1/4 of straight men were. Overall in those groups you would have:
    22.5 straight male donors at risk of having HIV
    7.5 gay male donors at risk of having HIV

    So even with increased risks in the gay group, the former group (heterosexuals) are going to pose the biggest risk due to their increased numbers in society. So if in that example we are seemingly not worried about those 22.5 straight men (as they have not been banned or effectively screened out with sexual health questioning), why focus in solely on gay men as a group?

    Now if the health service wishes to take zero risk with HIV and eliminate gay (active penetrative sex practising) male donors that is fair enough, overkill but of good intention. HOWEVER in not imposing similar bans on heterosexual men their entire argument on patient safety falls to shreds and instead the only deduction is that they are acting in a discriminatory fashion.
     
    #5 741852963, Nov 27, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2015
  6. HuskyPup

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    An Igloo in Baltimore, Maryland
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Huh, when I first saw the title of the thread, I thought it was going to about gothic gays or gays who maybe thought they were vampires, and bars where you could go and drink blood, along with reviews of them!

    Might be a market for that-few things surprise me anymore...
     
    #6 HuskyPup, Nov 27, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2015
  7. imnotreallysure

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,937
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Leeds, UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    ^^ I thought the same thing, and the funny thing is, it didn't even sound that weird to me. The crazy LGBT world has desensitised this type of thing to me. :lol:
     
    #7 imnotreallysure, Nov 27, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2015
  8. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    This is great news and I hope something significant comes of it. It's ridiculous and rather humiliating for those who want to donate blood to either lie or just not give at all, even if their personal risk is low.

    I've donated blood after lying. I'd do it again, and I suspect that it's probably more risky to let gay men lie flat-out than it is to go through a targeted screening process and questions.
     
  9. HuskyPup

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    An Igloo in Baltimore, Maryland
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Phew! I'm glad I'm not the only one!

    I also had no problem imagining it:

    "I'll have a glass of the O+ on the rocks, and a shot of chilled plasma, neat."
     
  10. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I realised this after I posted but it was too late to change. I was debating using the word ban, but with it being 12 months now it felt too permanent a word. I should have just stuck with my guns! :lol:

    Yup.

    Yes statistics do put gay/bi men as having a much higher incidence of HIV than heterosexuals.

    BUT HIV+ gay/bi men are a small minority within that group, and so turning away the vast majority of healthy gay/bi donors really is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    Even if removing the ban meant more HIV+ men donating, modern testing would be able to screen out most of those individuals PLUS (this is a biggie) would likely act as a valuable screening mechanism for catching HIV and making individuals more aware.

    Realistically we aren't going to get hordes of already self-aware HIV+ people knowingly and deliberately giving their blood. Instead it'll just be people who are unaware of their status or the rules, and we could quite easily notify these people post-donation, and mark on their records that they are unsuitable donors for future occasions.

    This would surely drive down HIV over the long term, as more people are successfully diagnosed, their is more knowledge, and ultimately less HIV+ donate.
     
    #10 741852963, Nov 27, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2015
  11. DangerousDan

    DangerousDan Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    London
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I'm happy to hear this. Myself not having had sex in the last year could of course donate blood and I have wanted to, however on the principle that this rule is discriminatory I have never actually done so.

    The idea that a gay man in a monogamous relationship in which neither person has HIV is somehow going to magically contract HIV (ok, I am assuming that they aren't sharing needles with people), whilst a straight guy who sleeps with a new person every other weekend is less likely to contract HIV is absolutely outrageous. I understand that nobody is directly saying this, however in the above situation the straight guy would be able to give blood whilst the gay guy wouldn't which is why I see this rule as discriminatory.

    I suppose that some people would argue that HIV is more prevalent in the gay community and that testing blood donors for it is expensive/time consuming. I would counter that argument by saying that if we think someone may have HIV we are going to have to test for it anyway, so once the conclusive results come back after the test at the 3 month point (assuming there were no lab errors) then surely people should be allowed to give blood.

    The reason I get so annoyed with this matter is because of groups that are often at my school saying 'everyone can donate blood' and how it is 'the right thing to do'. Unless you're gay and happen to have had sex in the last year, in which case don't bother, it's not like the NHS has a constant shortage of blood or anything... :tantrum:

    If this gets changed I happily go and start donating blood.
     
  12. Foz

    Foz Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    You Kay
    Gender:
    Male
    When I read the title it conjured up images of some cult like "3 pints of twink's blood for immortality" :roflmao:

    If you looky here you'll see that most blood groups only have about a weeks stock. Blood can't be frozen otherwise the cell membranes burst, so even if you have good stocks it has to be thrown out after 3 or so weeks.

    As a blood donor I'm glad this is being looked into, so that when I get to enjoy the best part of my sexuality I can still donate :lol:
     
    #12 Foz, Nov 27, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2015
  13. Im Hazel

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2015
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Rural England
    I think maybe that all donated anything should be checked for disease. I'm sure it would be cost-effective.
     
  14. PatrickUK

    Advisor Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Messages:
    6,943
    Likes Received:
    2,359
    Location:
    England
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    It's almost 20 years since I was last eligible to donate blood, but if/when the ban is lifted I will resume immediately. It's a good thing to do.
     
  15. Nekoko

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    In the shadows!
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Okay, I read "Review of Gay Blood Bars" and two things came to my mind "a night club for gay vampires?" And "wait... They're making candy bars out of gay blood?! :confused:" didn't know what to expect xD
     
  16. Foz

    Foz Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    You Kay
    Gender:
    Male
    All blood is screened and tested, so there wouldn't actually be any extra cost involved.
     
  17. LiquidSwords

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Tbh I'd find it a bit scary if the only check they did on blood was a screening process of those donating. Surely donated blood is tested a million times for every disease before they pump it into another's body anyway (?) in which case why discriminate on who can and can't donate ?
     
  18. DangerousDan

    DangerousDan Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    London
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Sure, but if someone was infected with HIV and then gave blood say 2 weeks after, tests likely won't pick it up because the body won't have had time to make antibodies in response to the virus which is what we test for to determine if someone is HIV+. And as it has been pointed out earlier in this thread, blood donations only last about 3 weeks because of the anticoagulant that they need to add to stop it from clotting. This means that infected blood could potentially be given to someone by mistake.

    Even if we used RNA testing to search the HIV virus itself, that can still take 1-3 weeks after exposure to the virus to be able to pick it up. So by the time this is effective we have to bin the donated blood. This also costs more and so is generally not the method that is used.
     
    #18 DangerousDan, Nov 28, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2015
  19. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    You sound like you know a lot more than me on this.

    So are there no possible tests that can be done quickly enough to establish HIV?

    If not surely the only logical answer is to ban anyone (gay or straight) that has had a new sexual partner in the last 2-3 months, then test all the blood (as the virus should be detectable in donors at this point). That might impact supply though, but still begs the question, if we happily take this risk with promiscuous or risky heterosexual donors, why not at least allow safe sex practising and/or monogamous gay donors.
     
    #19 741852963, Nov 28, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2015
  20. DangerousDan

    DangerousDan Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    London
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    At this point in time I don't believe so, perhaps in the future we will be able to introduce a quicker test or use a new anticoagulant which means the blood can be stored for a time period closer to the 4 months it can survive in the body and then we could carry out the RNA tests.

    You've really hit the nail on the head here and that is why so many people are upset with this policy. Especially with the second point, now I understand that in general straight people are less likely to contract HIV and that is why we have the current policy. However I imagine it is easily possible to alter the policy to be based on peoples sexual behaviour rather than orientation, so it would be based on things like: 'How many sexual partners have you had in the last X months?' and 'How often do you use condoms during sex?'. This way we still ban those that engage in risky sexual behaviour (more so even, because then a straight guy that commonly had unprotected sex would not be allowed to donate) but not those who only practise safe sex. This would I believe, bring an end to the current discriminatory policy whilst ensuring that we take less infected blood, or at least no more infected blood than beforehand.