Facebook - Gay Blood Ban Debate.

[Lee]

I am sure it won't move on to organ donation. There are people dying for want of a donor organ, there aren't people dying for lack of a blood transfusion.

But there is a shortage of blood, and how long is it before you cant give blood if you have ever took a breath? There is one blood type that can be put into any person, and they wont reject it, thats blood group O (think rhesus negative, cant really remember, my bad :redface. If it wasnt for that then a lot of people would be dead. But the fact is, its more successful with their own blood type, so why not give them their own blood group? because they cant because they have so many bloody stupid rules!

And i dont see the difference between a blood transfusion and organ donation, if the donor had HIV the recipient would contract it in both cases. And the majority of gay men dont have HIV, i think the rule is completely out dated! If i was dying, needed a blood transfusion, i really wouldnt care if it came from a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or even a person with pink or purple spots! its all screened at the end of the day! yes its not 100% fool proof, but there is a chance that a straight persons blood could contain the HIV virus!

[marshlander]

I'm pretty sure my optician told me that the law was changed a few years ago to stop contact lenses from being recycled to prevent the risk of infection via that route. That's not just targetting gay men though, unless he didn't tell me that.

[nick]

Since this is a sensitive topic do you think the lifetime ban was put in place to keep people from underestimating their risk factor of carrying HIV? They probably didn't want to get into a huge list of questions like how long since your last encounter are you monogamous, was a condom used, etc.

[fredv3b]

There are bans for persons who have engaged in a variety of risky activities, but they are not lifetime bans. Asking people when they last engaged in them seems to work OK.

[James]

Sometimes HIV doesn't show up in the tests for the first 3 months, I think that is their concern, I have given blood from 1968 to 1975 and am a gallon club member, however the tests must get better or the intel must be trusted, to be sure that the blood is not tainted, Jim

[colinmackay]

Sometimes HIV doesn't show up in the tests for the first 3 months, I think that is their concern, I have given blood from 1968 to 1975 and am a gallon club member, however the tests must get better or the intel must be trusted, to be sure that the blood is not tainted, Jim

Yes, but that does not warrant a LIFETIME ban as it does in the UK. All we are arguing for is that the ban is reduced to a proportionate level. As I understand a tattoo attacts a two year ban. Other activies attract bans of varying lengths. However, being a man who had said sex with another man (even if just once) attracts a lifetime ban. This is irrational fear and has no basis in reality.

It takes 3 months for HIV to show up in tests. Therefore a ban just over 3 months would seem to be proportionate. Don't you think?

[Genersis]

Yes, but that does not warrant a LIFETIME ban as it does in the UK. All we are arguing for is that the ban is reduced to a proportionate level. As I understand a tattoo attacts a two year ban. Other activies attract bans of varying lengths. However, being a man who had said sex with another man (even if just once) attracts a lifetime ban. This is irrational fear and has no basis in reality.

It takes 3 months for HIV to show up in tests. Therefore a ban just over 3 months would seem to be proportionate. Don't you think?

Agreed.

[Cryptique]

Here's some more food for thought, The group was mentioned on a LibDem website - A liberal cause in waiting

There's also this one about a court case in Australia, (People are dying because gay men can't give blood - Johann Hari) where even the scientists testifying at the trial included the doctor who first created the blood ban. Apparently he turned up to apologise for over-reacting. It's a really interesting article.

[juk]

I hate the ban, and people frequently are not aware of it and even had friends think I was making the ban up to get out of giving blood (I would love to be able to give blood!!)

To be honest a system that relies on self declaration is flawed because you will always have some people that lie for whatever reason, so reliable testing has to be the answer.

I am pretty sure I read an article some time back saying how the testing of donated blood was spot on now and [almost] nothing could get past it. If my memory is correct (which is occasionally is)
doesnt this make the ban pointless?

[Cryptique]

I am pretty sure I read an article some time back saying how the testing of donated blood was spot on now and [almost] nothing could get past it. If my memory is correct (which is occasionally is)
doesnt this make the ban pointless?

The statistics in an article I read recently stated that only "One HIV-positive blood donation will slip through every 5,769 years." I'm pretty sure that would not stop a lot of people from accepting blood. Especially if it was a choice of take the blood, or die.