Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Gays prohibited from giving blood

Page: 1(2)

12:57 / 28.06.06

I think the whole idea that "Gays spread AIDS" is ridiculous. Anyone can get AIDS, and the only reason that homosexuals may be more likely to get it is because they don't have to worry about pregnancy and therefore might not use a condom. People act like all gay men have AIDS, or that you get AIDS the minute you "turn gay".

Anyway, keeping homosexuals from donating blood is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Any blood donated to the Red Cross is tested for diseases before it is sent to hospitals and other places that need it. Why not let EVERYONE donate, and then simply weed out the blood that isn't usable? And if they let this continue, who knows what's next? If you're going to stop gay men from donating then you naturally have to stop lesbians, and heck, just boot everyone who's ever had unprotected sex off the donors list! You can't make generalized limitations on things like this.

13:33 / 28.06.06

Why not let EVERYONE donate, and then simply weed out the blood that isn't usable? And if they let this continue, who knows what's next?

Because the test commonly used to detect HIV in blood does not pick it up at very low titres (i.e. initial infection) and the virus is still infectious at that low level. It's also not exactly an efficient use of the Blood Service's time and money to carry out blood tests on people who (for whatever reason) are not viable doners when ticking a simple form sorts it out far more easily.

you naturally have to stop lesbians

Well, it seems that some donation services do stop lesbians from donating (I'd be curious to know the reason why though as gay women are not normally considered a high-risk group). The Blood Service in the UK does not, it's specifically gay men who're excluded. It seems those who have the say in this matter believe that the sexual behaviour of a gay man puts them at higher risk of infection by HIV.

(I'll try and contact the Blood Service and get hold of those details Swashbuckling mentioned, I think it would be interesting to hear what they have to say in this matter).

and heck, just boot everyone who's ever had unprotected sex off the donors list

I actually think that would be a better idea than excluding gay men. Even if someone is in a long-term relationship, if they practise unsafe sex they're at risk of infection.

I think it's important to bear in mind that the donation services are not necessarily excluding certain groups simply because of unthinking prejudice (or at least not just because of that). The damage that can be done through contaminated blood getting into the national blood supply can be significant. The exclusion of certain groups is warranted if there is a higher than normal risk*

* Bear in mind that I don't consider the exclusion of gay men to be valid in this respect.

17:36 / 29.06.06

HIV, HCV and other viruses are not the only reason gay men are excludedother viruses such as this one are present in higher amounts in the homosexual population.
"The committee seemed poised to recommend a change in the gay donation policy, but then the slides on herpes virus 8 were presented. Human herpes virus 8 (HHV-8) is a newly discovered virus thought to be the cause of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS). HHV-8 is also widespread among gay men, which helps explain the early, baffling concentration of KS among gay AIDS patients but not heterosexual ones." this is from "Should Gay Men Be Allowed to Donate Blood?"
By Derek Link
There are other viruses other than this that are present in higher populations in gay men just like some viruses more concerning to hetrosexual populations. Also in this country you have to face the fact that gay people, mostly due to underlying problems in society, are more sexually promiscuous (i think they are also more likely to use protection too). Until that changes in a pretty significant way blood bank management has a point. It is totally a policy choice based on science and reason not on homophobia. Lesbians (in the U.S. according to the the blood bank) are not promiscuous, do not have as many inherrent blood born pathogens in their population and as such are not restricted to giving blood. Also this will not go on continuosly. It will be adressed again and again and eventually some gay men will be allowed to donate blood based on tests and interveiws just like straight men. protesting continuosly doesnt help anyone. a more effective protest would be to get all the HIV negative men who have had sex with men since 1977 togethor at onceto go to the blood bank and attempt to give blood so that it is shown just how much blood the bloodbank is giving up.

*

22:05 / 29.06.06

HHV8 is an opportunistic infection which only appears in the presence of HIV, right? so it's not exactly a separate issue from HIV. That's like saying "You can't donate blood because you're gay, and also because you have sex with men, and also because you're a man who has sex with men. See, I have not one but THREE reasons."

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:21 / 04.07.06

Also in this country you have to face the fact that gay people, mostly due to underlying problems in society, are more sexually promiscuous (i think they are also more likely to use protection too). Until that changes in a pretty significant way blood bank management has a point. It is totally a policy choice based on science and reason not on homophobia.

Since this is all based on science and reason and not of course homophobia, could you provide some statistics or reference some sources to illustrate "the fact that gay people... are more sexually promiscuous"?

12:14 / 10.07.06

in chile i can't give blood because i was in the uk during the mad cow debacle.

that seems perfectly reasonabke to me - they've identified a group who are at higher risk to a (possible) problem and they are protecting the people who will receive blood.

do others agree, or is this as objectionable as refusing blood from gay men? the logic seems the same to me.

Kiltartan Cross

14:07 / 10.07.06

do others agree, or is this as objectionable as refusing blood from gay men? the logic seems the same to me.

What would happen if you were to say to them "but wait, I didn't eat any beef during that time - surely I'm ok?" It's a matter of trust. The "gays can't donate blood" issue revolves around Them - the establishment - not being willing to trust a gay individual who says they haven't put themself at risk. Maybe that's sensible, maybe it isn't. I couldn't swear I'm not at risk of BSE - I can swear I don't have HIV.

(edit)

I should add - what is discriminatory, I believe, is that a gay person who wants to give blood is automatically treated as unsafe - regardless of what they say about their sexual behaviour - whereas a straight person is assumed by default to be safe. Both, it seems to me, are a potential HIV risk; both could lie and say they hadn't been at risk when they had. Only if being gay is supposed to make you more likely to lie does the current approach make sense...

15:10 / 10.07.06

What would happen if you were to say to them "but wait, I didn't eat any beef during that time - surely I'm ok?"

They'd most likely still refuse you, as there's a possibility that beef products could have been unknowingly consumed (ie gelatin, etc).

It's a matter of trust. The "gays can't donate blood" issue revolves around Them - the establishment - not being willing to trust a gay individual who says they haven't put themself at risk.

I'd like to see some links to blood donation services that actively ban gay women. Again, in the UK it is only gay men that are banned from donating.

The blood service here is pretty much entirely based on trust anyway. They're putting their trust in doners to be honest about their history (be that recent travel, sexual, whatever).

Browsing the wiki on blood donation I found this interesting nugget of info:

policies vary in other countries; for instance, Australia formerly had a similar ban, but now only prohibits donating blood within one year after male-male sex (longer than the typical window period for HIV blood screening tests performed on donated blood)

This still makes an assumption that gay men are more prone to HIV infection than straight men (or women). But seems to be progress of a sort.

What needs to be done, if gay men are to be allowed to donate, is for governments to be encouraged to change their attitude on this subject and to begin a new round of studies to discover whether or not the current beliefs in this area are accurate.

I couldn't swear I'm not at risk of BSE - I can swear I don't have HIV.

Anyone who has any level of active sexual life is potentially at risk of HIV infection.

21:13 / 27.07.06

LE BUMPÉ

I just got word, and thought you'd like to know, that a federal injunction (am I using the legal term correctly) made it illegal for blood banks to ask a person sexual orientation when they are donating blood. That came to pass after a LGBT rigths group requested a judge to rule it illegal. in the judge's sentencing, he says, and I quote, "If in the past the selection of people apt to donate blood due to their sexual orientation had its reasons, today such prohibition has retreaded before statistical data and recent technological advancements."

ANVISA ("Agência de Vigilância Sanitária" - "Health Watch Agency" - the government body that deals with that kind of stuff) has now 30 days to warn all blood banks in the country to adjust their policies accordingly (people admiting to having recently had homosexual relations - and as I understand, that means boys and girls alike - were banned from donating blood for a year). They say they will appeal the decision, though.

*

00:42 / 28.07.06

Thanks for the update, that's interesting. I anticipate hearing how it will all turn out.

Tryphena Absent

15:19 / 18.05.07

There has been a response to the petition on number10. Frankly it's insulting, read it here.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

10:28 / 19.05.07

It is cock on so many levels. I'm thinking of writing to my MP because, unless I'm completely misunderstanding it, this is actually an argument for accepting the blood of gay men and banning that of straights, as it's presented, it would seem that up to 2/3rds of men who had HIV didn't identify as gay. Also, 40 donations in total out of three million? So 0.01 percent of blood donations were found to be HIV +, so that means it's okay to discriminate against a section of the population that is many times larger than that?

And last I heard I thought the NBS were saying they couldn't check the blood they receive for it's HIV status.

As is usual with the things that 'Tony' deigns to reply to, it's basically "shut up, fuck off, we're following whatever the existing strategy is"

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:27 / 19.05.07

Interesting, DM - thanks for that. One of the issues here, apart from what it says about attitudes to gay men, is the expectation of revelation - that your employer, for example, would not be allowed to treat you differently according to your sexuality, but the blood donation service of your country may have the right to demand that you reveal your sexuality and then treat you differently because of it.

The government response states that it is not possible for workers at the point of care to distinguish between high and low-risk lifestyles, but it is also not possible for woorkers at the point of care to determine whether someone has in fact been to Africa lately. So, why not have a question about whether you have since your last HIV test indulged in a high-risk activity? e.g. unprotected anal or vaginal sex, exchange of blood, intravenous drug use with shared needles, and so on? It's a bit confusing.

Anyone who has any level of active sexual life is potentially at risk of HIV infection.

Well, to be exact they are absolutely, not potentially, at risk of HIV infenction, but that doesn't mean that they potentially are HIV positive. For example, if I have not had sex or indulged in any other known transmission risk activity for some months before or since my last (negative) HIV test, it is possible that I have somehow become HIV positive. There may be some means of transmitting the virus that is not currently known to science. I can, however, reasonably say that my risk of donating HIV positive blood is very low indeed. Yes? And, short of performing HIV tests on people who wnat to donate blood, monitoring them to make sure they do not do anything risky for the antibody development period and only then accepting their blood, as you say it is really a matter of trust, in which case the need for blood to be donate must be balanced against the risk of nasties entering the nation's blood reserves, and sensible action taken to balance the need against the risk.

20:08 / 20.05.07

Unfortunatelly, since I posted that, the injunction has been anulled. So, we`re back to square one over here. The fight continues

10:32 / 22.05.07

Well, to be exact they are absolutely, not potentially, at risk of HIV infenction, but that doesn't mean that they potentially are HIV positive.

Well yes, true. I was, however, responding to K2's suggestion that ve was able to swear that they didn't have HIV whereas ve couldn't swear that of CJD.

For example, if I have not had sex or indulged in any other known transmission risk activity for some months before or since my last (negative) HIV test, it is possible that I have somehow become HIV positive. There may be some means of transmitting the virus that is not currently known to science. I can, however, reasonably say that my risk of donating HIV positive blood is very low indeed. Yes?

Again true, however that's different from someone swearing that they are clear (and, I would argue that the example is not what I would consider an "active" sex life). Okay I'm being a touch pedantic a touch? but it is, I feel, an important distinction.

It would, perhaps, be a better idea that all doners were also asked to attend a regular blood screening in between donations. Not difficult to do really, it only takes a couple of minutes to draw a blood sample (although, having worked as a low-level functionary in a hospital serology lab my fingers are cramping in sympathy at the poor lab-monkey who'd be spinning and separating all those extra samples).

Harsh news on the donation front in your neck of the woods then Megs, any chance of an appeal?

Kiltartan Cross

11:04 / 22.05.07

I wonder if there's some way in which potentially higher-risk samples could be held in isolation for a year or two, with their use being contingent on the donor testing negative at the end of that time?

I guess the feasibility of that is dependent on several things; how long blood can be kept without deteriorating, how long the incubation period (or whatever its called) is for whichever diseases are being screened for - that is, are they almost certain to progress to a detectable level - and the purely practical hangup of contacting the donors once the blood has been stored for a while.

I wouldn't imagine it would be generally practicable, but I could imagine a specialist centre doing it in the odd major city. Thoughts?

(Edit)

Ah. Wikipedia says that while blood can be frozen, the process is expensive and time-consuming, so I suppose that's a non-starter. Unless there were particularly dedicated patrons prepared to fund the whole thing.

12:03 / 22.05.07

I wonder if there's some way in which potentially higher-risk samples could be held in isolation for a year or two, with their use being contingent on the donor testing negative at the end of that time?

Again it'd be contingent on them not partaking of any high-risk activities (or activities percieved to be high-risk) in the meantime, because as soon as they tested positive the blood would have to be disposed of (some rare blood cell types are stored for about a decade, couldn't find anything on the storage of plasma though).

I find the Government response to be particularly disheartening. The UK blood stocks are always critically low, and spending a few million rechecking the evidence could potentially help to alleviate that problem.

12:06 / 22.05.07

because as soon as they tested positive the blood would have to be disposed of

Sorry. To explain. The presumption would have to be made that the disease was present when the blood was first donated because no evidence to the contrary could be presented really. So the response would be to err on the side of caution.

21:29 / 13.10.08

Sorry to bump an old thread (but with traffic like it is at the moment, what's the worry, eh?)

Interesting article on Johann Hari's website:

Earlier this year, a 21-year-old gay electronics technician called Michael Cain launched a court case against the Australian Red Cross after they refused to take his blood. He wants gay men who exclusively practice safe sex – like him – to be allowed to donate like everyone else. The scientists testifying at the trial included the doctor who first created the blood ban – who came to apologise. They explained that blood banks now have to choose between two competing risks. On one side is the high risk of people dying because they are given old, stale blood due to a lack of donors. On the other side is the infinitesimally small risk of people dying because they have been given blood by condom-wearing gay men.

The US epidemiologist and bio-ethicist Dr Scott Halpern crunched the figures for the court. Some 1 in 100 people who are infused with blood older than 14 days will die – and 13 per cent of infused blood offered by the Red Cross is older than that. This, he explained, poses a risk "thousands of times greater" than "the very worst predictions of HIV infection" if you let latex-loving gay men donate. Why? Because if the ban is lifted and gay men who practice safe sex are allowed to donate, a single HIV-positive blood donation will slip through clinical screening once every 5,769 years. That's one time between now and the year 7777 – or equivalent to it happening once since 3761 BC, when cities had not yet been invented.

13:11 / 15.10.08

Bump away, it's always better to bump a relevant thread than start a new one.

So say I anyway.

That's an interesting article. I hadn't realised the head of the NBA had made those comments, what an arse. %There's nothing quite like tagging people as "evil" to ensure a reasoned clear-headed debate.%

12:45 / 01.12.09

Bah-bah-bah-bump.

Peter Tatchell in the Guardian today talks about possible moves in the UK toward a partial lift the ban on gay men giving blood. The CiF commentry below it is...well, judge for yourself.

La-la-la-la-link.

18:35 / 04.03.10

threadrot - Society is a great, great movie. Starts off like an episode of 90210 before degenerating into one of the most fucked up, and perfectly representative horror movies of the 80's.

10:24 / 09.09.11

Just in case there's anyone interested; The lifetime ban on gay men giving blood in the UK has been altered to now allow them to donate if they haven't had sex with another man in the 12 month.

Progress, of a sort.

Page: 1(2)