So I Was Giving Blood Today......

CrazyTalk

And there I was looking at the list of criteria, and apparently if you've EVER had any kind of sex with another man, with or without protection, you're not eligible to donate..

I'm sure plenty of you know about this already. I'm not gay, and it came as a shock to me, considering I thought the stigma about 'gays n' aids' was long gone, since the 90's or so.

L1011

I believe its the same in the UK and pretty much nowhere else though. Just allows themselves to con themselves in to thinking they can do less rigorous tests. You're banned for only a year after using a heterosexual prostitute - despite many STDs having longer incubation periods or time-to-noticed in otherwise healthy people.

Makes for a nice irony - of the 4 Westlife boys that are the IBTS spokes, erm, band - one is gay and one of them lived in the UK for a long time (played for Leeds I think) - meaning half the entire band is on the banned list for donations...

unreggd

Fvck that

Theres always them ads sayin how bad they need blood, and people are dying from not gettin blood, then they've stuff like this

I thought that last statistic showed more straights with HIV?

CrazyTalk

unreggd wrote: »

I thought that last statistic showed more straights with HIV?

Thats the verry first thought that came into my head when I read the it on the sheet. I actually had to reread it two times more to make sure I wasnt imagining things :mad:

Rev Hellfire

As a percentage of overall population I thought it was lower among hetrosexuals, which if that is still the case makes it justifiable in order to protect the blood supply.

unreggd

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

As a percentage of overall population I thought it was lower among hetrosexuals, which if that is still the case makes it justifiable in order to protect the blood supply.

Either way, its discrimination

All the straight people giving blood could easily be the percentage with HIV, AIDs etc

I'd never have unprotected sex with a girl, even if shes on the pill [bar a long term gf after an STI check, which I'd get meself]
and I think thats why its on the rise, more girls are on the pill, so theres more unprotected sex

its all about lack of education, people have always seen condoms as just pregnancy control, so gays, or girls on the pill wouldnt need them

Rev Hellfire

unreggd wrote: »

Either way, its discrimination

All the straight people giving blood could easily be the percentage with HIV, AIDs etc

I'd never have unprotected sex with a girl, even if shes on the pill [bar a long term gf after an STI check, which I'd get meself]
and I think thats why its on the rise, more girls are on the pill, so theres more unprotected sex

its all about lack of education, people have always seen condoms as just pregnancy control, so gays, or girls on the pill wouldnt need them

Of course its discrimination, they're discriminating against groups which have a higher statistical risk of infecting the blood supply.
Surely you don’t believe they should allow groups which may potentially risk the integrity of such a service simply to be “right on man”.

The fact that lesbians aren’t excluded shows that it is purely on the grounds of the health risk.

Boston

Erm, There is/was a mind set Rev, that there's no such think as Lesbians. Anyway, yes, it have a higher prevalence among men who engage in sex with other men.

Dr.Louis

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

they're discriminating against groups which have a higher statistical risk of infecting the blood supply.

Two things- just because you're gay doesn't mean you partake in the risks (ie anal sex) that can lead to infection and also I'm pretty sure that just as many heterosuxuals (based on common sense, not statistics) have anal sex too.

The most recent research in ireland into STD/STI infection and spread shows that a higher percentage (not just more people) of heterosexuals have HIV/AIDS than homosexuals do.

The whole point is that they shouldn't be trying to reduce the amount of infected blood by discrimination, they should be reducing it by screening it for such infections (which I think they do anyway, so that makes their discrimination even more pointless!?!)

I just think its a way of 'saving face' after the despicable hepatitis scandal, they're trying to show their efforts by playing into the bigger majority's hands (ie heterosexuals still feel that homosexuals have a higher rate of infection so that justifies their discrimination)

Anyway, rant over...

Boston

when you take drug users out of the equation is it still true that a higher percentage of heterosexuals have STIs. If so I'd like to read what ever study you've based that comment on.

It is true that the rate of heterosexual infection is greater the homosexual could that be what you refer to?

williambonney

What lesbians do to each other is (physically) more or less pretty harmless. (Ok, they use sex toys etc, but they are inanimate objects that just need a good cleaning before and after use.)Some Homosexual men on the other hand, stick living (throbbing?) parts of their anatomy into an unspeakable orifice of another mans body. And from what I am led to believe they (gays) tend to be fairly promiscuous. Now I am not anti gay, each to his own, it’s none of my business what people get up to. But where blood transfusions are concerned, we just can’t be too careful can we?

Boston

williambonney wrote: »

But where blood transfusions are concerned, we just can’t be too careful can we?

Thats relative. I'm a rare blood type (O negative) if you had to make a choice between dying on an operating table (or even delaying a life saving operation) due to an inability to obtain blood, would you still have problems accepting fully tested and verified blood from a homosexual?

There are practices which are more unsafe then other, such as anal sex and being promiscuous, however these are not the things which bar you from given blood. So yes, you may receive blood from a sexual defiant, don't let a ban on gay/bi men convince you otherwise.

williambonney

As I have said in my previous post, a person’s sexuality is of no concern to me. But I would be of the opinion that we just cannot be too careful where the containment of aids is concerned. And of course all sub Saharan Africans entering this country should be tested for aids. Africa is unfortunately awash with the disease due mainly to the promiscuity of heterosexual men. By the way, I am also O RH neg.

Boston

williambonney wrote: »

As I have said in my previous post, a person’s sexuality is of no concern to me. But I would be of the opinion that we just cannot be too careful where the containment of aids is concerned. And of course all sub Saharan Africans entering this country should be tested for aids. Africa is unfortunately awash with the disease due mainly to the promiscuity of heterosexual men. By the way, I am also O RH neg.

You can be straight and be a defiant.

Why test them when you've stated you wouldn't take blood even if it was tested?

williambonney

Sub Saharan Africans would not be allowed to donate here anyway. But they should all be tested as a matter of course. If they are infected they would pass on the disease via sexual activity.

Boston

I'm aware of that. How would you feel about being tested as a matter of course since if you were infected, you would pass on the disease via sexual activity. Surely one cannot be too cautious when it comes to HIV.

williambonney

I am talking about people who come here from Africa where aids is endemic. No need to test people who come from places where the disease is not so prevalent. Sub Saharan Africa is absolutely alive with aids. I am amazed that any Africans are allowed into the EU at all without being tested.

LegacyUser

Profile the blood, not the people providing it. All blood should be tested fully anyway, regardless of all other factors. Where people are from or who they shag is completely irrelevant if the blood has proven to be okay.

unreggd

williambonney wrote: »

I am talking about people who come here from Africa where aids is endemic. No need to test people who come from places where the disease is not so prevalent. Sub Saharan Africa is absolutely alive with aids. I am amazed that any Africans are allowed into the EU at all without being tested.

Yes, cos hardly anyone in Ireland has HIV/AIDs

and the ones that do have the acceptable kind

You really dont know what you're on about

Aids is Aids

Rev Hellfire

unreggd wrote: »

Yes, cos hardly anyone in Ireland has HIV/AIDs

and the ones that do have the acceptable kind

You really dont know what you're on about

Aids is Aids

Aids is indeed aids, but the issue here is risk management.

To even compare Aids in the sub-Sahara to European levels is beyond the ridiculous; certainly I’d totally agree with a total ban on blood donors from that region as well.

Podge_irl

Dr.Louis wrote: »

The whole point is that they shouldn't be trying to reduce the amount of infected blood by discrimination, they should be reducing it by screening it for such infections (which I think they do anyway, so that makes their discrimination even more pointless!?!)

They do indeed test the bloody. However, like all such tests, they are not 100% accurate. As such they take extra measures to reduce risks by eliminating all "high-risk" categories from donating. This includes both intravenous drug users and homosexual men.

Do I think its wrong? To be honest, I'm torn on the matter. My best friend is gay, and as he points out, he gets tested more often than I ever would. But statistics are statistics, and (I believe) a higher proportion of gay men have the HiV virus and therefore there is a greater chance of it getting past the tests and into the blood donation system. I think that this is one area where perceived discrimination shouldn't come into it, but rather there should be a rigorous scientific study into the risks involved. As things stand, and I admit I haven't fully studied the issue, I assume that such a study has been done and this is the best system they have come up with. It's unfortunate, but then they also "discriminate" against people who were born or lived in England at a certain time despite the risk of them actually having vCJD being very small (I think that is why the restrictions are in place) and similarly for those abroad in malarial areas etc. They just don't accept blood from perceived high-risk groups - and these high-risk groups are defined, I presume, through scientific study rather than ingrained biases.

XJR

This is going on years, I first came across this when I tried to give blood in college nearly two decades ago and I suppose you could understand it then. It sort of miffed me at the time but to be honest I really don't give a crap anymore. Mind you I was of the impression that the rate HIV infection was decreasing among gay men while it was increasing among straights so does the embargo still hold up?

Boston

Podge_irl wrote: »

They do indeed test the bloody. However, like all such tests, they are not 100% accurate. As such they take extra measures to reduce risks by eliminating all "high-risk" categories from donating. This includes both intravenous drug users and homosexual men.

Do I think its wrong? To be honest, I'm torn on the matter. My best friend is gay, and as he points out, he gets tested more often than I ever would. But statistics are statistics, and (I believe) a higher proportion of gay men have the HiV virus and therefore there is a greater chance of it getting past the tests and into the blood donation system. I think that this is one area where perceived discrimination shouldn't come into it, but rather there should be a rigorous scientific study into the risks involved. As things stand, and I admit I haven't fully studied the issue, I assume that such a study has been done and this is the best system they have come up with. It's unfortunate, but then they also "discriminate" against people who were born or lived in England at a certain time despite the risk of them actually having vCJD being very small (I think that is why the restrictions are in place) and similarly for those abroad in malarial areas etc. They just don't accept blood from perceived high-risk groups - and these high-risk groups are defined, I presume, through scientific study rather than ingrained biases.

I think the problem is that it is based on certain statistics and higher risk groupings rather then common sense and higher risk activities. A woman who has sex with a man who has had sex with another man is banned for 6 months (last I looked, maybe less now) where as both men are banned for life. How does that make sense, is a women likely to contract HIV then a man somehow?

Why don't they look at the 18 to 25 age range? This is the age range most likely to contract STIs and without a doubt would be a higher risk then homosexuals in general. Also no distinction is made between 'safe' sex and unsafe sex, or oral sex and anal/virginal sex. Thats where the problem is. Its this blanket dumb one size fits all solution which actually just puts people at a higher risk.

dory

What would happen if a really camp gay guy walked in and wanted to give blood? Could he just lie on the form and work away?

My €0.02; it's ridiculous. I know a load of guys who are not promiscuous and would donate but can't because of this law. And I know a lot of straight men and females who don't donate anyway but I wouldn't be too surprised if they had a few foreign objects swimming around their blood.

Boston

It's my understanding you have to sign document stating that the above facts are true before you can give blood. That would open you up to a lot of problems if you lied on it.

DeVore

This confuses the hell out of me, I mean... they test ALL blood donated right? Its not a statistical sampling so the prevalence in particular sectors of the populace is complete irrelevant.

Either this person, donating blood here and now, has the virus or they dont.

DeV.

Boston

I think the argument is that no test is 100% and given the now common practice of rushing blood through testing due to shortages, its unlikely to be near 100%. So if you remove high risk groups completely, thats your course grained filtering, and the tests themselves are the fine grained filters.

Edit: Afaik, the blood is also treated, not just tested.

DubArk

If any most of you really are interested in not talking through your arse holes Id advise that you educate yourselves before you talk any more rubbish “My best friend is gay” ………….“And of course all sub Saharan Africans entering this country should be tested for aids”

What’s important is learning the facts.
Not some sort of inbuilt mesh mash of urban myth mixed with some factual truths.

http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&con=114

In theory, anyone can donate blood but there are certain groups who should not. All donated blood is tested before it is given to patients.
You should never donate blood if you are in one of the following groups:

• You are a male who has had sex with another male
• You have ever used a needle to take drugs of any kind
• You or your partner is HIV positive
• You have had jaundice after the age of 13 years or you contracted jaundice under the age of 13 years that was caused by Hepatitis B or C

• You have spent more than one year in the United Kingdom between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1996 (this is to protect against any risk of vCJD transmission via blood). The United Kingdom includes England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
• You have received a blood transfusion in the Republic of Ireland since 1 January 1980.

Boston

Could you stop posting using non-default fonts and colors. Not everyone is using the same skin as you, and writing in black for instance doesn't show up.

L1011

DubArk wrote: »

• You have had jaundice after the age of 13 years or you contracted jaundice under the age of 13 years that was caused by Hepatitis B or C

They changed that rule - used to cover non hepatatis caused neo-natal jaundice, or so I was told by a IBTS employee.

Would mean I was otherwise allowed to donate blood, then. Oh well, still down a potential donor anyway.

moridin

DubArk wrote: »

If any most of you really are interested in not talking through your arse holes Id advise that you educate yourselves before you talk any more rubbish “My best friend is gay” ………….“And of course all sub Saharan Africans entering this country should be tested for aids”

What’s important is learning the facts.
Not some sort of inbuilt mesh mash of urban myth mixed with some factual truths.

<snip blah blah anyone can look up a website but what does it have to do with the discussion/snip>

Instead of just quoting which groups that can't donate, this thread was about why there is still the restriction for males who've ever had sex with another male.

If you'd like to further the discussion then please do so, but quoting what we already know [i.e. restrictions put in place in Ireland] doesn't add anything to the thread.

DubArk

moridin wrote: »

Instead of just quoting which groups that can't donate, this thread was about why there is still the restriction for males who've ever had sex with another male.

If you'd like to further the discussion then please do so, but quoting what we already know [i.e. restrictions put in place in Ireland] doesn't add anything to the thread.

Of course that’s your opinion and you entitled to that at the very least.
I was only trying to establish the facts and if you’d read what I had written maybe you just might of picked that up?! I wanted to make sure all knew what was NOT allowed.
Again if I want in any way to contribute to any discussion I will without your permission.:rolleyes:

Boston

You're just delightful aren't you.

swiss

DubArk wrote: »

If any most of you really are interested in not talking through your arse holes Id advise that you educate yourselves before you talk any more rubbish “My best friend is gay” ………….“And of course all sub Saharan Africans entering this country should be tested for aids”

We are aware of the facts. In fact they were mentioned in the first post. This thread is debating them, which tends to happen in a debate forum. You are of course entitled to state your opinion but you're not helping yourself with your attitude.

DeVore wrote:

This confuses the hell out of me, I mean... they test ALL blood donated right? Its not a statistical sampling so the prevalence in particular sectors of the populace is complete irrelevant.

They do test all blood yes, but there is a period of I believe about 3 weeks from the time in which a person can contract HIV and the point where it shows up in tests. I don't know enough about the testing procedure to know whether there is a workaround for this, but I imagine this is the reason why they're taking extra precautions.

As for the rule itself, while I understand the reasoning behind it I can't help but feel theres a double standard where straight people who have had multiple sexual partners can donate but a gay person who engages in safe sex with one partner cannot.

One solution that was proposed the last time this came around was the idea that a blanket ban be imposed on everyone who has engaged in risky activity for one year. I think this is a reasonable solution that ensures the safety of our blood supplies whilst ensuring as many people as possible have the opportunity to donate.

DubArk

swiss wrote: »

We are aware of the facts. In fact they were mentioned in the first post. This thread is debating them, which tends to happen in a debate forum. You are of course entitled to state your opinion but you're not helping yourself with your attitude.

I worked back in the 80’s in the Terrence Higgins Trust in the budding group. This was a volunteer group of people that went around to people homes with AIDS that needed day to day help or just a shoulder to cry on. Back then there were no drugs to help there was nothing at all.

I attended the very first meetings in Bart’s Hospital in London to try and get a grip of the facts rather then the myths that were flying around.
I am not HIV positive but none the less felt that I should inform myself with as much knowledge as could and can.
I can’t see anything wrong with my attitude. I just felt that I had a right to an input in this discussion.

I am gay and have been refused from giving blood although till the new rules came into the UK I had donated for years. I won’t give blood now; first because im asked not to because of the Gay rule and two because I lived in the UK during the beef crisis.

I don’t find a problem with the rules as they have to be general as their doing their best here and in the UK to protect people from contaminated bloods. AIDS and HIV still are incurable and change with each new strain and therefore till medicine does finally get to grips with the virus, the rules are a necessity.

moridin

DubArk wrote: »

I am not HIV positive but none the less felt that I should inform myself with as much knowledge as could and can.
I can’t see anything wrong with my attitude. I just felt that I had a right to an input in this discussion.

Sure, anyone can have an input in the discussion, but posting a link to AIDS 101 and re-stating the facts under discussion don't add anything and can't really be taken as "input" IMO.

I am gay and have been refused from giving blood although till the new rules came into the UK I had donated for years. I won’t give blood now; first because im asked not to because of the Gay rule and two because I lived in the UK during the beef crisis.

I don’t find a problem with the rules as they have to be general as their doing their best here and in the UK to protect people from contaminated bloods. AIDS and HIV still are incurable and change with each new strain and therefore till medicine does finally get to grips with the virus, the rules are a necessity.

My first BF had a very rare blood type and the IBTSB kept spamming him with letters saying "we need your bloodtype, please donate". When he tried to donate then then said "no, you're gay, you can't donate". And kept sending him letters. Annoying much?

I agree with Swiss... ofc I don't want anyone to be infected with contaminated blood, but singling out gay people just because they've had sex at any time in their lives and ignoring the huge number of straight people who have unprotected sex ranks of hypocrisy to me.

unreggd

I dont know why people keep mentioning sub-saharan Africa, cos noones on about testing in general

its in relation to donating blood

As Boston said, singling out the age group is a much better idea

And the other point tryin to be made is that they have their statistics backwards with HIV, so technically they should stick to their principles and not take any blood from straight people who have ever had sex

Rev Hellfire

unreggd wrote: »

And the other point tryin to be made is that they have their statistics backwards with HIV, so technically they should stick to their principles and not take any blood from straight people who have ever had sex

I'm assuming you have proof that the infection rate within the straight population is greater than within (active male)homosexual population on a per-head basis.

moridin

unreggd wrote: »

And the other point tryin to be made is that they have their statistics backwards with HIV, so technically they should stick to their principles and not take any blood from straight people who have ever had sex

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the screening procedure should be robust enough that it shouldn't matter what the sexual orientation of someone is when you're donating blood.

If you've had unprotected sex in the last year then you're a higher risk, regardless of your sexual orientation. If you haven't, then you should have the same rights as the next person, and the screening should be able to catch any problems regardless of who is donating.

Annasopra

DeVore wrote: »

This confuses the hell out of me, I mean... they test ALL blood donated right? Its not a statistical sampling so the prevalence in particular sectors of the populace is complete irrelevant.

Either this person, donating blood here and now, has the virus or they dont.

DeV.

The HIV virus can take up to 3 months to incubate - so a test on the blood may be negative now but poistive in 4 months

DeVore

Ok, but that will affect all sexual preference groups equally. I understand that it introduces a problem for the testing of blood and that donated blood may not be safe as a result (I dont know this for sure). But it does seem to me that either our blood transfusion service cant be sure the blood is safe (due to this time-lag) or they are excluding people based on sexual orientation. Neither seems good...

DeV.

markw999

I worked in the BTSB for a while and am gay and don't really understand it. All blood is tested. I understand that no test is 100% accurate, but as said before, what's the difference between a straight person and a gay person when it comes to that? To presume the level, and frequency of someone's sex life, in this day and age is preposterous.

When I was working there, some friends of mine in college, their LGBT was organising protests against them for that reason, and I supported them. I only ever heard it mentioned there once, in the smoking area. All of the people talking there were straight, and they were saying "I'm sure that there are gay people working there". They had just never really thought about it.

Now, afaik know, rates are higher in the heterosexual community but at the same time, there was that rash of syphilis among gay men about a year/ a year and a half ago.

Personally, if everyone is tested as rigoursly as I know they are, I don't see the problem. Also, it's quite comical to me this ban since I handled blood products all day (sure they were doubly packaged and I had no actual direct contact with the blood, but I'd still have to physically pick up the units etc. - they were double packed in hard plastic - so you could pick them up with no fear, and you would have to, it's part of the job).

And finally, the shortage. When I worked there it was in the summer and there were weeks when the shelves were bare and there was just no blood to give out to hospitals, and all of the gay men that they could be taking blood from obviously weren't being allowed to donate. Also, whoever mentioned on page one that "gays are promiscous" should know better than to make generalisations like that. It's those type of statements that have this ban in effect.

I do remember one interesting conversation in work.

"So do you donate?"
"Me, no..."
"Why not?"
"Well you know the list as well as I do. You work it out. And it wasn't the "living in England" thing..."

unreggd

moridin wrote: »

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the screening procedure should be robust enough that it shouldn't matter what the sexual orientation of someone is when you're donating blood.

I wasnt basing that on any of your posts

LegacyUser

Quote from ibts.ie FAQs ref the blood ban

"This policy causes considerable offence: it is clearly discriminatory against gay men, and categorises all gay men as being at increased risk of HIV; it has also been criticised because it seems to single out gay men to the exclusion of other groups in the community who also have an increased risk of acquiring HIV. In recent years heterosexual females have overtaken IV drug users and homosexual men as the largest group of new HIV cases in Ireland."

This seems a bit nonsensical, they recognise that gay men aren't the highest risk category any more but the ban still remains. I accept that in the past gay men were most at risk to HIV and this hasn't just disappeared, but there are definitely ways around it. If a gay man was to get tested for HIV, 4 months later get re-tested (incubation period) and come back negative both times I don't see why they couldn't give blood assuming they didn't have sex during the 4 months.

That could be extended to two partners who were both tested in this way and stay in a relationship with each other. If they didn't have sex with anyone else there is no reason to view them as any higher risk than a heterosexual couple.

I recently came out to my friends haven't found the one just yet so I'm still eligible to donate blood. On a personal level I want to give blood, despite the fact that the IBTS are making such insulting assumptions about all gay men. However it's important to me to give blood regardless so I think I'll do it before it's too late. I've never taken drugs, drink moderately and don't smoke so after that it's their loss.

MCMLXXXIII

MYOB wrote: »

I believe its the same in the UK and pretty much nowhere else though...

I'm in the US and it's the same. I am not sure if it is law, but the American Red Cross will not allow it.

unreggd wrote: »

Theres always them ads sayin how bad they need blood, and people are dying from not gettin blood, then they've stuff like this...I thought that last statistic showed more straights with HIV?

I see the same thing as you - posters all over my University saying things like "every 3 minutes someone dies because there isn't enough blood." It doesn't make me feel bad - I offer my assistance and they refuse it, it's kind of like the Red Cross is murdering these people...not me.

Also - I agree with everyone else. They record the information, but nothing tells if you are lying about it all. Who knows if you are black and your family immigrated to Ireland 100 years ago, or if you are just arriving from the sub-Sahara area.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Boston wrote: »

when you take drug users out of the equation is it still true that a higher percentage of heterosexuals have STIs. If so I'd like to read what ever study you've based that comment on.

It is true that the rate of heterosexual infection is greater the homosexual could that be what you refer to?

In 2006 23% of the people who caught HIV were homosexuals. When you consider that only around 5% of people are gay men its a very high number.
The majority of the Heterosexuals were of sub-saharan African origin. I think only 2% of the people were Irish male heterosexuals. So over ten times as many gay Irish men caught it than straight.

Basically men are far more promiscuous than women. And straight men don't have someone elses semen inside them after unprotected sex, or if a condom breaks. Lessening the chance of them catching the virus from an infected partner

college_dude wrote:

This policy causes considerable offence: it is clearly discriminatory against gay men, and categorises all gay men as being at increased risk of HIV; it has also been criticised because it seems to single out gay men to the exclusion of other groups in the community who also have an increased risk of acquiring HIV.

Your sexuality actually has nothing to do with it. It's whether or not you've had sex with another man. If I was raped by a guy I'd imagine my blood would be refused. And it applies to Sub-Saharan Africans & anyone who's ever injected a non-prescription drug too.

Stark

People who inject drugs are only banned for a year. A prostitute who regularly had unprotected sex would be okay to give blood a year after she stopped. Get a blowjob off a guy and you're banned for life.

If they attached more conditions to the gay sex ban and/or shortened the duration of the ban, then there'd be much less of an issue.

Zee Deveel

Very interesting thread. I have a friend who works at a needle exchange, and she mentioned as we drove past a van reminding us to give blood that she couldn't give blood due to a drug addiction from years ago. That was her out forever. I mentioned how, if it wasn't for blood transfusions I would be quite dead by now, after having to have a few as a child, but, because of those transfusions, I can never give blood. It doesn't make sense. I had a transfusion to save my life, which it did. Even, after one transfusion, I had a bad reaction, fever, unconsciousness, and I was tested for all the usual suspects, HIV, Hep whatever letter... and was found to be ok. Haven't done anything else that would 'warrant' a lifelong ban on bloodgiving, but even though my blood has been tested and found safe, and I've gone almost 2 decades without any adverse reactions from those transfusions, I'm deemed unsafe to give blood.

I think that, most certainly, the rules should be reviewed. My auntie caught Hep C from a transfusion after giving birth to her kid. Obviously, they weren't careful enough back then, but surely, they can find a happy medium? It is not sensible to alienate so many people from the bloodgiving process. My mother has blood problems, she can't give, which is fair enough, my father had a weird rash for a few years which was blamed on blood problems... a decade odd later, he is still never allowed to give blood. I can't due to my transfusions. For good reasons like my father and mother, I can accept it, an unexplained blood disorder, and severe anaemia and depleted supplies, yeah, fair enough. But I can't cos I had a transfusion almost 20 years ago? Bull. Cos you've had gay sex? Bull. Cos a million years ago, you injected needles? Bull.

Whatever about a time limit after doing certain 'undesirable' acts, that' fair enough. But a lifetime ban, is just silly. Punching your nose to spite your face.

LegacyUser

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Your sexuality actually has nothing to do with it. It's whether or not you've had sex with another man. If I was raped by a guy I'd imagine my blood would be refused. And it applies to Sub-Saharan Africans & anyone who's ever injected a non-prescription drug too.

I'd like to point out that the paragraph you quoted me on was taken directly from the IBTS website. They aren't my words.

Kooli

College_dude wrote: »

Quote from ibts.ie FAQs ref the blood ban

If a gay man was to get tested for HIV, 4 months later get re-tested (incubation period) and come back negative both times I don't see why they couldn't give blood assuming they didn't have sex during the 4 months.

.

How would this solve anything? Then surely the argument would just become 'Why do homosexual people have to provide proof of a negative HIV test when heterosexual people don't? That's DISCRIMINATION!'

As I said in the other similar post, I am not allowed to donate EVER because I spent more than 6 months in Sub-Saharan Africa. I don't view that as offensive. I know the rule is based on assumptions about me that aren't true. But I also acknowledge that I am now part of a high-risk group, and it is simply not worth the IBTS's time, money and effort to open the doors to all the high risk groups and then end up having to discard blood (although they would also of course get clean blood) or risk making mistakes. Better to be safe than sorry here, and I think the rights of the IBTS (who are providing a fantastic service) and the potential recipients come WAY ahead of anyone's right to donate blood.

And how many people never even considered donating blood until they realised they weren't allowed, so now it has become their sacred mission?