Gay blood donations ban likely to be lifted?

[Almac]

[COLOR="Navy"]On the BBC 'News Health' online this morning the headline was 'Gay blood donations ban likely to be lifted' The Royal College of Nursing have overwhelmingly voted in the lifting of the ban. The Terrence Higgins Trust, the UK's largest HIV and sexual health charity, says the arguments must be about public health, not discrimination.
It states: "We believe any decision on the safety of the blood supply must be based on evidence and not on political lobbying or framing of it as purely an equalities issue."

I think those in monogamous loving relationships are no more at risk of Aids or passing it on than heterosexual couples. Who agree with the Terrence Higgins Trust we must never base any medical decision on political lobbying, but then we must never base any medical decision on prejudices either. [/COLOR]

[fenris]

I think the same.... but in a much harder view ....

Everyone has the same chances to protect.... but gay and bisexual men are much more informed about HIV as straight men. I hear it here so many times "I´m straight, I don´t protect against HIV... because I´m not at risk" These men are much more dangerous to donor bad blood than gay and bisexual men ... and more: You can find a very high percentage of """straight""" man searching for fast, secret sex in public toilets and they think they are safe because they are straight, married and not in a risk group... they never would call themself as bisexual or gay and they take the danger of a infection with open eyes home to their families...

[OrphanPip]

That doesn't address the fact that whether or not gay men are more careful (which some probably are) the rates of HIV remain high in the gay community, much higher than the general population. Moreover, recent studies have suggested that HIV infection rates are resurgent in recent years amongst young gay men, rather than becoming less frequent.

I almost feel that this attention given to the blood ban is akin to burying our heads in the sand, rather than admitting that the AIDS epidemic is alive and well in the gay community.

[pellaz]

"monogamous relationships are no more at risk of Aids or passing it on than heterosexual couples"

and its like they dont test for HIV before using your blood.

largely discrimination here boys and girls. a good to see the ban lifted at least in the UK

[fredv3b]

I almost feel that this attention given to the blood ban is akin to burying our heads in the sand, rather than admitting that the AIDS epidemic is alive and well in the gay community.

I couldn't agree more!

[paulbrazilbh]

That doesn't address the fact that whether or not gay men are more careful (which some probably are) the rates of HIV remain high in the gay community, much higher than the general population. Moreover, recent studies have suggested that HIV infection rates are resurgent in recent years amongst young gay men, rather than becoming less frequent.

I almost feel that this attention given to the blood ban is akin to burying our heads in the sand, rather than admitting that the AIDS epidemic is alive and well in the gay community.

Absolutely correct!

Also, here in Brazil, the government uses the same way of think: you're gay, you can't donate blood, simple as that.

We have campaigns 'bout donating and keeping the blood banks at high levels, but isn't simple as that, because the people aren't well informed about how safe is donate.

Sometimes I think about lie in the interview, but is like lie to myself. So, hope someday I can donate :-) Let's see the future.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Anosai]

I gave blood twice in two years I was eligible to, between the time I finally weighed enough to the time I had my first (and so far only) male partner.

I'd gladly give again if this gets lifted. But this would only apply to the UK, right?

[bariuke]

Well, I don't know about regulations on blood donations in the UK, but I gave blood once in Japan, and I asked about their regulations as well. They only turn down people who have had sexual relations with another man within the past year, which struck me as odd. They also turn down people who have ever been to prison or have had a prostitute within the last year. The last question is "is your primary purpose for donating blood to determine your HIV status?"

I asked why they have these regulations, since they obviously test the blood, and they said that it's because if the blood is unusable, they have wasted resources taking it, and they are trying to avoid that. This was odd reasoning to me, because there are so many conditions and illnesses that would render blood unusable. How much resources are they actually potentially saving by excluding gays?

This is an even bigger issue in Japan, because gays ARE the most informed and cautious about not only HIV, but other STIs as well, and are also the people who most frequently get tested. Many people in Japan have little to no knowledge of STIs, and there are even some who don't even know what HIV is. They believe that diseases don't exist in Japan, so they don't need to worry. This is really scary; apparently there is a high population of people who have an STI and don't even know it. I heard that there has been a sharp rise in STIs among young women in Japan because they don't know about STIs nor realize that they could have one, so they never seek testing or treatment. However, all of the questions to filter out "unfit" blood donors are all directed at men; there are no questions that would exclude a woman besides the "are you donating blood to find out if you have HIV" question.

I know I got a little off topic, but my point is that, at least in Japan, the "at risk" group seems to be much larger than just gays and men who frequent prostitutes.

So yeah, it may be that HIV is more prevalent among gays, but there is some discrimination when there are countless people who could very well have something that could easily walk in and give blood, while a safe, careful gay man would get turned down simply on the grounds that he is gay.

[kitschcamp]

I think those in monogamous loving relationships are no more at risk of Aids or passing it on than heterosexual couples. Who agree with the Terrence Higgins Trust we must never base any medical decision on political lobbying, but then we must never base any medical decision on prejudices either.

That's the thing that bugged me with this announcement. I'm in a committed long term relationship. We've been together 11 years, and married over 5 years. Neither of us has ever strayed. Yet I'm still treated as a lepper, and the only way I could ever give blood is by not having sex with my long term partner for a year? Yet a slapper that shags everything in sight every Friday and Saturday night in Essex can give blood? Hmm. Seems very sensible and well thought out.

[zeon]

Hello,
I think in todays socioety people can live in naiveness because too many people start critising the gay community with pedophillia and aids and other bits and pieces yet people of all walks of life can get hiv and to be honest if someone wishes to give blood then they should do a 1 hour HIV test first on a small file of blood and then if clear be allowed to donate however as i dont give blood not through choice but through phobia of needles i dont really have much of a view on this.... Hence why i dont tend to go for my tetnus jab and havent when it expired at 24 lol

Kindest regards

zeon