Gay Rights Or Gay Wrongs

[brokencross]

They are at it again. The Gay Equal rights, anti-discrimination lobby now want the right to give blood.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7347108.stm

Having looked at the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service website there is also "discrimination" against prostitues, tatooed people, foreign travellers, folk who have had their ears pierced recently, skinny people, pregnant ladies, if you have been to the dentist and many more.

http://www.scotblood.co.uk/whoCanDonate.asp

As far as I can see these rules are there for very good reasons, the health of the actual donor and minimising the risk, as much as possible, of accepting infected blood from any "at risk" donor. It is not solely or overtly anti blooming gay; it is a sensible measure after what appears to be well founded risk assessment.

Why on earth can these Gay lobbyists not just get on with their own lives instead of seeking out causes. The lifestyle is tolerated (not necessarily fully accepted) by society in general, so why don't they quit rocking the boat while they are ahead.

[Oddquine]

Until there are more accurate methods of testing, I can't see the problem with blanket bans on gay males.........better safe than sorry..........after all, as far as I'm aware, gay females can give blood, so it's not a gay rights issue...it's a health issue.

I'd guess there have been more people who picked up something nasty from the blood of gay men than from people with newly pierced ears and the underweight.

[NickInTheNorth]

There is no more danger from non-promiscuous gay men than there is from non-promiscuous heterosexual people. Indeed worldwide there are far far more heterosexual people HIV positive than there are gay men. So why should they be discriminated against?

They ask questions of all donors to assess risk of infection. Why they choose to believe heterosexuals, and not homosexuals I do not know.

And given the low level of donating currently in the UK I would think that any willing donor should be accepted and judged on the criteria which actually pertain to a genuine risk of infection, rather than an age old prejudice against a lifestyle choice.

[mccaugm]

Actually I have the opposite opinion. If the gay person practises safe sex then the risk is as low as a heterosexual person practising safe sex.

As was stated in the article the ban came about during the 80's panic over AIDS and HIV. It was wrongly assumed that being gay meant you had a predisposition to becoming HIV+

We need more blood to be given rather than less.

The testing of blood has progressed over the years so I am sure things would be fine.

[brokencross]

There is no more danger from non-promiscuous gay men than there is from non-promiscuous heterosexual people. Indeed worldwide there are far far more heterosexual people HIV positive than there are gay men. So why should they be discriminated against?

They ask questions of all donors to assess risk of infection. Why they choose to believe heterosexuals, and not homosexuals I do not know.

And given the low level of donating currently in the UK I would think that any willing donor should be accepted and judged on the criteria which actually pertain to a genuine risk of infection, rather than an age old prejudice against a lifestyle choice.

The latest thinking from England and Wales may not quite agree with your appraisal:- http://www.blood.co.uk/pdfdocs/posit..._exclusion.pdf

[NickInTheNorth]

Given the stated reasons in that position paper which I don't think it appropriate to mention openly on here, then they should enforce a total ban on anyone who has practised either of the 2 particular practises they highlight as leading to the high risk. Neither practice is restricted to gay men.

I am afraid that the advice seems to have been developed rather in the same way as the original anti-homosexual legislation was in Victorian England. It was only aimed at men because Queen Victoria refused to believe that woman would ever enjoy the intimate company of other women!

[Penelope Pitstop]

Just a thought.....how does this affect organ donation....if indeed it does?

Would an organ be rejected if donated from a sexually active gay man??

[Boozeburglar]

http://www.avert.org/stats.htm

It is pretty meaningless to talk about overall numbers of people infected in different groupings when you are trying to assess risk.

As a percentage of the overall gay male population, HIV rates are many times that found in the heterosexual community.

Yes a gay male practising strictly safe sex is minimising their own exposure, but they still belong to a high risk group.

You cannot subdivide groups into endlessly and do an individualised risk assessment.

You won't be giving blood if you have recently travelled to a high risk country, so why if you belong to a high risk group?

Things like life insurance, etc. are a different matter, they should reflect the fact you are in a safer sub category, but that profiling is not funded by the Tax Payer.

Boo hoo if you are gay and you don't think it is fair.

I don't remember any friend or colleague of mine from Zimbabwe or who was gay complaining, (and I used to live with many of them), when they were excluded from the blood donation round we used to have amongst HA staff. Perhaps they were thinking of the greater good.

[EDDIE]

to be honest about it the blood should be checked first before giving to anyone in need no matter who u are.

[Penelope Pitstop]

to be honest about it the blood should be checked first before giving to anyone in need no matter who u are.

It is checked ................to the best of their current ability. As with everything nothing is 100%.....except death of course.

[badger]

There is no more danger from non-promiscuous gay men than there is from non-promiscuous heterosexual people. Indeed worldwide there are far far more heterosexual people HIV positive than there are gay men. So why should they be discriminated against?

They ask questions of all donors to assess risk of infection. Why they choose to believe heterosexuals, and not homosexuals I do not know.

And given the low level of donating currently in the UK I would think that any willing donor should be accepted and judged on the criteria which actually pertain to a genuine risk of infection, rather than an age old prejudice against a lifestyle choice.

Oh Nick - I was agreeing with you and thinking someone with sense at last until I got the last few words. Lifestyle choice? Come on. Surely you know better than that.

Apart from that though you're absolutely right. It's a nonsense rule. It always amazes me that one has to tick all those little boxes - and they believe you!! As if anyone is going to get that far only to have to admit to some stranger that they have paid for sex or any of the other more dubious things in the list. These days I imagine many people don't even know the accurate history of people they've had sex with so unless they've always been 100% protected how can they be sure they're telling the truth?

[_Ju_]

I have often wondered about the sexual practice part of the questionaire. Back home, risk behaviour was defined as anyone of any sex that had multiple sexual partners especially if unprotected sex was practiced. Here if you are a man who had sexual contact with another man ( does not say anything about protection) you are a risk forever. If you are a woman and in the last year have had sexual contact with a man who has had homosexual contacts ( how likely is it that you will know that if you are having casual sex???) or have had "alternative" sexual contact with a man then for that year you cannot donate (again nothing about protection). Considering that the fastest growing group of HIV infection is the young heterosexual population defining homosexual acts as a risk behaviour does not make any sense at all. The risk behaviour has to be casual sex, especially with multiple partners and especially without protection.

[honey]

id rather receive blood from any of the gay men i work with (as an ecample) (2 in relationships longer than my marriage) than some of the wee tarts (both sexes) in my building who are out every weekend sleeping with god knows who and picking up god knows what.

I actuall discussed this recently with one of the gay men at my work, he explained the "technicalities" that make the spread of infection higher.. but if there is no infection to spread... wheres the risk??


down here, we have ads on the radio on a daily basis begging for blood, yet we are turning away suitable donors in their hundreds.

[balto]

surely as long as the men wanting to give blood practice safe sex then surely there cant be any higher a risk than blood from a straight person, after all it isnt just gay men that can contract hiv, and if they are as desperate for blood donners then surely it makes sense to screen anybody that is willing to donate.

[percy toboggan]

Approximately five per cent of the population - homosexual men - are responsible for almost fifty per cent of new HIV infection.

I would not want blood from a man who has sex with other men...
this is another eample of a few zealots wanting totally equal treatment..are homo's bending over backwards in an attempt to donate blood?...queuing up only to be spurned...leaving them bereft and feeling useless?
I doubt it.
Enough said.

[balto]

Approximately five per cent of the population - homosexual men - are responsible for almost fifty per cent of new HIV infection.

I would not want blood from a man who has sex with other men...
this is another eample of a few zealots wanting totally equal treatment..are homo's bending over backwards in an attempt to donate blood?...queuing up only to be spurned...leaving them bereft and feeling useless?
I doubt it.
Enough said.

but surely their blood would be screened for any infections or hiv so i would be just as safe.

[percy toboggan]

but surely their blood would be screened for any infections or hiv so i would be just as safe.

As things stand there is no 100% safe test on blood products for a total lack of HIV infection.
So said an expert haematologist on the subject on BBC RAdio 4 yesterday.

[_Ju_]

Approximately five per cent of the population - homosexual men - are responsible for almost fifty per cent of new HIV infection.

I would not want blood from a man who has sex with other men...
this is another eample of a few zealots wanting totally equal treatment..are homo's bending over backwards in an attempt to donate blood?...queuing up only to be spurned...leaving them bereft and feeling useless?
I doubt it.
Enough said.

Ignorance is very dangerous with this disease. The fastest growing group of HIV infections after intravenous drug users is heterosexual youngsters. The questionaire you answer when you donate blood ( which I do) does not weed out people who are effectively having very dangerous risky behaviours and is, instead, picking on the easy targets (and on top of it all, if you have the same behaviour, but happen to be a woman, you are a risk for one year, where as if you are male it is a permanent risk??????). As I said, back home the questionaire concentrates on people having casual, indiscriminate and unprotected sex. Whatever their gender and whome ever they are canoodling with. This is what makes sense.
Percy, hopefully it will never happen, but when you are lying there, needing blood to survive, even if it has come from the only gay muslim immigrant in the north yorkshire village (that has obviously been tested and found to be healthy), you will (or maybe should would be a better term given the intervenients) be very grateful for that pint of blood that they took the time and effort to give.

[balto]

As things stand there is no 100% safe test on blood products for a total lack of HIV infection.
So said an expert haematologist on the subject on BBC RAdio 4 yesterday.

i didnt realise that, so what if someone lies on the questionaire that you have to answer when you go to give blood whos know what might get passed through if this is the case

[karia]

My best mate has Haemophillia and requires factor 8 or 9 from blood three times a week to ensure he does not bleed to death. He was never expected to reach 'adulthood' but has only received tainted blood twice in his forty years.

1st) Hepatitis C..traced eventually to a female drug user and which lead to a year of 'Interferon' treatment where he lost his hair and suffered many of the other debilitating side effects that are on a par with chemotherapy.

2nd) more scarily CJD ( mad cow disease) from a burger eater...no tests..no quarantine period..just a huge old fear that that tremor in his hand might be the start of something..Oh and 'depression' is another of the few side effects from CJD...lucky he is a happy sort of guy!


He is a 'straight' guy who would welcome blood products from the gay community who thanks to AIDS know the importance of truth when giving blood..

He is the bravest in the world..I am honoured to be his friend so I take him at his word when he says he prefers gay blood donors..because they actually THINK about it...and know the damage that can be done at first hand.