Slight change in UK Blood Ban rules

I wonder how many people... stop for 10 years... DOT DOT DOT.

 

I'm kind of scratching my head about the 10 years myself.

 

I would've thought 1 year - they claim that it's for HIV infection prevention and that
HIV can take up to 6 months after infection to show positive on a test...so 1 year to be safe?
But 10 is dumb
I can't give blood for a couple of years for health issues, but hopefully by then I will have had sex, and also no periods of 10 years without it
So kmt they don't want my blood how rude lol

 

Here in Canada, it's if you've had sex with another man anytime since 1970. So that's 40 years...10 years is still bs though. I think they should just make it 6 months to a year. And when you go in maybe just show your most recent HIV test? I dunno.

 

It's totally stupid to believe anyone over the age of 30 haven't had sex within the past 10 years <.<

 

Wow.. Goverments are so retarded!...

But I can give blood! wahoo!!

 

Without governments though, society would be retarded.

I think they're trying to gradually get the ban repealed. They seem to think that taking it away overnight would make the ignorant very angry. So, this is their first step in total repeal.

My theory.

 

I think I support the blood ban. In some UK cities, the levels of men who have sex with men who are HIV positive are 12%, that's one in ten gay guys with HIV. Additionally, the levels of HIV among the MSM population are rising.

The blood donor clinics have a responsibility to ensure the safety of those receiving and giving blood. In the UK, there is not a blood crisis either and despite what the ads might hint at, they aren't perpetually draining the bottom of the barrel when it comes to blood supplies.

I don't think the policy is discriminatory against gay people. I think it just picks out population groups that are at high risk of having blood-borne viruses, like people who have lived in Africa or people who have had a tattoo recently. It isn't that these people are worse people or have bad blood but that they come from high risk groups. And whether we like it or not, as gay people (gay men specifically) we come from a very high risk group in terms of HIV.

If you are going to design a blood donor policy and you need x units of blood in a year, from a medical standpoint the best policy is to get blood first from the population groups which have a low risk of blood borne disease and if you can get your required amount of blood then why take the risk associated with high risk groups?

That's my rant over, sorry, I just get annoyed with this issue. It's a medical issue and when deciding who to take blood from the only thing which should be taken into account is the safety of the receiving patient.

 

Aren't all blood samples screened after donation anyway? I know they are in NZ. Why put a restriction on it if you are going to spend the time and effort to check them all afterwards regardless of who the donor was?

 

Blood donation rules are always stupid. Having a tattoo disqualifies you for life. Having a piercing only disqualifies you for six months.... even though piercings can take much longer than that to heal and will always have the potential to rip or flare up, whilst a tattoo is sealed inside your body and is unlikely to cause problems once it's healed.... so about six weeks to be safe. Girls giving blood get asked if they've ever had sex with a man who had previously had sex with other men. It's all just paranoia.... they could save so many more lives if they took a practical approach and actually found out how long they need to stand people down for. It seems to me like it's all just arbitrary numbers......

 

Do they test blood before they give it to people?

 

The blood donation site says:
"Tattoo - I just got a tattoo. Can I donate?

You cannot donate for 6 months after receiving a tattoo. This also applies to cosmetic tattooing."
Maybe it used to be a ban but it looks like they changed it.

Yes (in New Zealand anyway). They do it before they put it into storage.

The thing that gets me is that here, gay men have to have a 5-year hiatus, while prostitutes only need 1 year. I would have thought that prostitution would be viewed as a higher-risk activity...

 

Because screening is never 100%.

If you are going to draw up a donor policy you start with deciding on how much blood you need. Let's say you need 500,000 litres of blood a year. You then make a list of all the population subsets and rank them according to their risk of having blood-borne viruses like HIV and Hep C.

You then take as much blood from the least riskiest group. Then if that leaves you needing more, you take it from the next least riskiest group. If you can then get enough blood to fill your quota (which the UK does with their current policy) then why take it from the riskier groups?

Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, gay men have one of the highest prevalences of HIV in the UK and if we as a community really want to give blood then we should be better at using condoms!

 

I think it depends on the date when you got it, but a lot of places will turn you away if they can see ink. It doesn't help that consumer affairs tv keeps stirring things up. There's a perception that all tattoo inks are dangerous.... a lot of my local studios are still in damage control over that story so it's not surprising that people with no interest in the industry aren't getting the right information. I know people who have been turned away from blood donation for tattoos that were years old but just happened to be visible.