Gay rights, coming out, blood donation and discrimination.

Cabbage Brained

Boston wrote: »

They're medical professionals weighing up all the risks and being extremely conservative. More then likely as a direct results of what happened in the 80s and 90s from hepatitis. I have never subscribed to the notion that this ban is homophobic in nature and you'll get no where with the IBTS be arguing from that stance.

Yeah I'm sure fear of litigation is the main driving force behind the decision.

Boston

Precisely, and you know, its something you never hear mentioned in any of these talks about how to change policy.

snappieT

The IBTS quote above said that HIV testing is not reliable within 10 days of contracting HIV. There are other cases (accupuncture), where they insist that you wait for a certain time after getting the treatment and giving blood. I presume this is for the HIV/blood infection reasons.
Surely the same could apply to gay men: no giving blood if you'd engaged in sexual contact with another male in the past month, or whatever.

(I'm ruled out anyway due to transfusion, but hating that I never got a chance to give blood because of the no-gay rule)

Nebit

thank boston! i stand corrected:rolleyes:
never really connected the hepatitis scare

Aard

IJ, I get what you're saying. The first encounter with such ignorance is a real slap in the face. I had been out for about 3-4 years before it really happened to me (at our 6th year spiritual retreat of all places). I'm afraid I wasn't as gracious as you were, and instead started effing and blinding and slamming doors.

My advice is not to waste your powder on these people. Even if you come out with logical arguments, they have an uncanny ability to ignore sound facts only surpassed by their stubbornness.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I.J. wrote: »

However on the issue of blood donation. Why is it that a STD free gay man is still not allowed to donate blood? From what I am reading there is total discrimination against gay men. It could be years since a gay man had sex and still he is not allowed to give blood despite it being clean. If a woman has sex with a man who has had sex with a man she's banned for two years but if a man has sex with a man he's banned for life. It is very clear discrimination that only gay men are banned because even if I am fine I am still banned just because x number of other gay men have STDs. That is NOT equality, that is plain old discrimination. That IS generalisation and unacceptable.

I think if you read more about it or talked to doctors in the field you'd change your mind. The consequences are so devastating you have to be discriminatory.

The same goes for Sub-Saharan Africans so its not just an anti-gay thing. There's no ban on gay men, its simply a ban on men who have had sex with men. If I was raped tonight I'd be banned but it wouldn't make me gay.

I can understand how offensive the ban must feel, and I empathise with you getting upset about those guys taking delight in sneering at homosexual men, that must be tough.

jady88 wrote:

BTW the huge majority of STDs, and the enormous growth in STDs in Ireland came from heterosexual couples and in particular young heterosexual males.

Erm, how does that work? Surely females would be required to spread stds in a heterosexual population?

I.J.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think if you read more about it or talked to doctors in the field you'd change your mind. The consequences are so devastating you have to be discriminatory.

The same goes for Sub-Saharan Africans so its not just an anti-gay thing. There's no ban on gay men, its simply a ban on men who have had sex with men. If I was raped tonight I'd be banned but it wouldn't make me gay.

Thanks for the response but I have now discovered that even a man who is completely free of STD is banned, simply if he had sex with a man and no matter when it was. I don't get why a woman who had sex with a man who had sex with a man is cleared after 2 years but a gay man gets a lifetime ban. I have read it can take up to 10 months for infections to show up in a report. So why not put a time frame on it? This goes for all people. If every donation is checked why ban gay blood? If I had sex once with a man 10 years ago and am completely free of STD and always have been I am still banned. If a lifetime ban only applies to gays that is discrimination.

Boston

I.J. wrote: »

Thanks for the response but I have now discovered that even a man who is completely free of STD is banned, simply if he had sex with a man and no matter when it was. I don't get why a woman who had sex with a man who had sex with a man is cleared after 2 years but a gay man gets a lifetime ban. I have read it can take up to 10 months for infections to show up in a report. So why not put a time frame on it? This goes for all people. If every donation is checked why ban gay blood? If I had sex once with a man 10 years ago and am completely free of STD and always have been I am still banned. If a lifetime ban only applies to gays that is discrimination.

In short, infection vectors. Theres no such thing as completely free of an STD. Every test has a margin or error. .0000001 is not the same as zero. Anal sex is inherently more risky then vaginal sex and that is reflected in the numbers. Yes it's discrimination, so is a lifetime ban based on where you were born.

I.J.

Boston wrote: »

In short, infection vectors. Theres no such thing as completely free of an STD. Every test has a margin or error. .0000001 is not the same as zero. Anal sex is inherently more risky then vaginal sex and that is reflected in the numbers. Yes it's discrimination, so is a lifetime ban based on where you were born.

How about a woman who has had anal sex? Is she banned for life? What about all the women who perform oral sex with men? I have seen nothing about these people being banned. If every blood donation is checked why does it matter what the lifestyle of a person is?. What I'm glad to find in my searches is that there are huge numbers campaining against such discrimination.

Dwn Wth Vwls

I think the quote from the IBTS on the previous page explains it pretty well to be honest. They admit it's blatant discrimination and they apologise for that, but they're just trying to minimise risks. If they were really desperate for blood they'd probably change their policies.

dny123456

Personally i'm quite happy the discriminate, as the reasons they do it, are good. i.e. for safety of us all with regard to blood transfusions..

I often wonder though, I've been carrying around a organ donor card for years... was/is there any point? Would they take a gay mans kidney/liver/heart etc?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Cabbage Brained wrote: »

I think that is a pretty misleading statistic to quote. Surely gay men are much more likely than straight men to get tested? Which in fact would lend credence to the argument that heteros shouldn't be allowed donate blood, as I'm almost certain they are less likely to know they are positive.

I'm not sure about that. Seen a lot of threads on boards from gay men saying they were too scared to get tested in case the result was positive. Also, if you're taking anti-HIV drugs and they are successful its quite unlikely you'll pass on the virus to partners. This suggests to me a lot of HIV infection is passed on without either party being aware.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8068074.stm

Refelctor wrote:

The system is terrible discriminatory. People should be entitled to donate blood if they want. The system should judge people individually as in if you are a person who engages in risky sexual behaviour than you should not be allowed donate if you don't than you should. A blanket ban is just wrong and also I would think that more gay men have had an std screen than straight people but this is mostly anecdotal.

How exactly would you define "risky behaviour" ? If they did it this way they would probably consider all msm activity risky and I don't see how they would narrow it down.

I.J wrote:

So why not put a time frame on it? This goes for all people. If every donation is checked why ban gay blood? If I had sex once with a man 10 years ago and am completely free of STD and always have been I am still banned. If a lifetime ban only applies to gays that is discrimination.

Is anyone who's upset with the current rules going to be appeased by a 10-year ban? Would you give up your sex life for 10 years to donate? Would anyone?

How about a woman who has had anal sex? Is she banned for life? What about all the women who perform oral sex with men? I have seen nothing about these people being banned.

Anal sex is riskier but the main problem is that as a group men who have sex with men have overwhelmingly higher rates of HIV transmission.

If every blood donation is checked why does it matter what the lifestyle of a person is?.

The donations are checked by humans. Humans make errors. There are procedures in place to limit errors for something of this importance but it can't be guaranteed. Therefore it makes sense not to let high-risk group blood into the system.

Therefore they don't let ex-IV drug users(even if they've tested negative), commercial sex workers(even if they've tested negative), people living in the UK during the BSE period, women who received blood during the hep C scare(even if they've tested negative), people who have spent time in Sub-Saharan Africa(even if they've tested negative) etc donate

What I'm glad to find in my searches is that there are huge numbers campaining against such discrimination.

I doubt it will change until the level of HIV transmission amongst men who have sex with men reduces to the same level as that amongst the general population. It would be illegal for the health industry to accept any blood from any high risk group.

Perhaps they should put their complaining efforts into combating the sub-culture of promiscuity amongst a minority of gay men(saunas, orgies etc). That's what's stopping other gay men from being able to donate.

I.J.

I didn't say anything about a 10 year ban and I didn't say anything about giving up a sex life. If a test clears a straight person after a year or so, why not let a test clear a gay man after a year or so? Just take a straight woman in the same position as a gay man. What really is the difference? Anal sex is riskier as you say but what about those gay men who don't have those overwhelmingly high rates? This is still unjust discrimination because, as i said, if a woman has anal/oral sex she can go ahead but a man can't. Even if the woman has had a lot more anal/oral sex than men. The fact is, from what I see, its an old fashioned rule equated with the 1980s belief that ONLY gay men get Aids. There might be discrimination in many areas but I do not accept homosexuals being treated any different to heterosexuals. Locations and experiences with drugs etc.. are one thing but ruling out one type of human being is totally unacceptable. If things are to be equal I say either put a ban on anybody who has had anal or oral sex if these are the risky ways to receive disease or put gay people on the same level as straight people, test everybodys blood, throw out whats useless and keep what tests consider fine. Human error comes into everything but that still is no excuse to discriminate.

Reflector

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

How exactly would you define "risky behaviour" ? If they did it this way they would probably consider all msm activity risky and I don't see how they would narrow it down.




Perhaps they should put their complaining efforts into combating the sub-culture of promiscuity amongst a minority of gay men(saunas, orgies etc). That's what's stopping other gay men from being able to donate.

I would define risky as having unprotected sex with multiple partners. If you don't do this then you should be allowed donate. gay or not.

I don't agree in your second statement. I believe in free choice and these saunas serve an important function. it would just bring it out onto the streets. But if you are having sex regularly in a sauna maybe you shouldn't donate. But if a straight guy was visiting prostitutes he would be allowed donate.

Tricity Bendix

I.J. wrote: »

I didn't say anything about a 10 year ban and I didn't say anything about giving up a sex life. If a test clears a straight person after a year or so, why not let a test clear a gay man after a year or so? Just take a straight woman in the same position as a gay man. What really is the difference? Anal sex is riskier as you say but what about those gay men who don't have those overwhelmingly high rates? This is still unjust discrimination because, as i said, if a woman has anal/oral sex she can go ahead but a man can't. Even if the woman has had a lot more anal/oral sex than men. The fact is, from what I see, its an old fashioned rule equated with the 1980s belief that ONLY gay men get Aids. There might be discrimination in many areas but I do not accept homosexuals being treated any different to heterosexuals. Locations and experiences with drugs etc.. are one thing but ruling out one type of human being is totally unacceptable. If things are to be equal I say either put a ban on anybody who has had anal or oral sex if these are the risky ways to receive disease or put gay people on the same level as straight people, test everybodys blood, throw out whats useless and keep what tests consider fine. Human error comes into everything but that still is no excuse to discriminate.

I'm not an expert, but I doubt its the type of sex that's the problem; we're not discriminated against because we've had anal sex with a man, we're discriminated against because men who have sex with men are significantly more likely to have HIV. If so, your man/woman comparison isn't valid.

I.J.

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

I'm not an expert, but I doubt its the type of sex that's the problem; we're not discriminated against because we've had anal sex with a man, we're discriminated against because men who have sex with men are significantly more likely to have HIV. If so, your man/woman comparison isn't valid.

Ok, so in regard to the man/woman example, I'm taking it that its proven that a man has a higher chance of getting HIV from one man than a woman has of it getting it from one man, even if both have the exact same kind of sex?

Tricity Bendix

I.J. wrote: »

Ok, so in regard to the man/woman example, I'm taking it that its proven that a man has a higher chance of getting HIV from one man than a woman has of it getting it from one man, even if both have the exact same kind of sex?

Oh my yes.

Rev Hellfire

Reflector wrote: »

But if a straight guy was visiting prostitutes he would be allowed donate.

Would he ?

I mean just because something isn't explicitly stated doesn't mean its automatically allowed. I'm pretty sure that if someone said they've been frequenting brothels the reply wouldn't be, "sure that's grand, roll up your sleeve".

MagicMarker

I.J. wrote: »

Ok, so in regard to the man/woman example, I'm taking it that its proven that a man has a higher chance of getting HIV from one man than a woman has of it getting it from one man, even if both have the exact same kind of sex?

As a gay man you should really educate yourself on these issues.

I.J.

MagicMarker wrote: »

As a gay man you should really educate yourself on these issues.

Uhhh.. do you not think thats whats happening now? Education is part of what this thread is about. We are always learning new things. If it wasn't why is there so many question marks in my posts? I would be interestered to know what it is about women that they don't get infected with diseases through anal/oral sex as easily as men.

Nonetheless, even if that example is not to be used, it still doesn't stop the fact that there is discrimination. A promiscuous straight men who doesn't use protection is still allowed to donate while a mongamous gay man who uses protection isn't. Still doesn't sound just to me.

Rev Hellfire

I.J. wrote: »

A promiscuous straight men who doesn't use protection is still allowed to donate while a mongamous gay man who uses protection isn't. Still doesn't sound just to me.

The priority here is not to provide some humanist ideal but to maximize the protection to the blood supply in as much as is easily and feasibly possible.
I'd much rather have your right to donate trampled upon rather than have the risk to the integrity of the blood supply increased for reasons of 'right on-ness'.

I.J.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The priority here is not to provide some humanist ideal but to maximize the protection to the blood supply in as much as is easily and feasibly possible.
I'd much rather have your right to donate trampled upon rather than have the risk to the integrity of the blood supply increased for reasons of 'right on-ness'.

I don't accept that. I do not believe that gay men are second class citizens. There are thousands of gay men who could donate blood no more dangerous than anybody else but are denied. Easily and feasibly? Such convenient words for discrimination. It was reported in 2000 that half America's blood banks called for the ban to be lifted. If I was in need of blood I would have no bother receving a gay mans blood once I knew it had gone through the same tests a straight persons had.

Rev Hellfire

I.J. wrote: »

I don't accept that. I do not believe that gay men are second class citizens.

Nor are people who lived in the UK, or people who had blood transfusions, or people from sub-Saharan Africa or people who ...

I mean if your argument is solely based on it makes you boohoo, what can you expect. We trust the medical professionals to make these uncomfortable decisions because they unlike us have the education and experience to make an informed decision not based on emotion or popular opinion.

Boston

I.J. wrote: »

Ok, so in regard to the man/woman example, I'm taking it that its proven that a man has a higher chance of getting HIV from one man than a woman has of it getting it from one man, even if both have the exact same kind of sex?

Yes, per capita you have a man has a higher change of getting HIV from another man then a woman has. Apart from that, Anal sex is far more risky.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The priority here is not to provide some humanist ideal but to maximize the protection to the blood supply in as much as is easily and feasibly possible.
I'd much rather have your right to donate trampled upon rather than have the risk to the integrity of the blood supply increased for reasons of 'right on-ness'.

You have no right to donate blood, so no rights are being trampled. You as a straight male have no more a right to donate blood then I do. This idea that you have a right I don't is what causes confusion. No one can point to any law to back up such an assertion.

I.J. wrote: »

I don't accept that. I do not believe that gay men are second class citizens. There are thousands of gay men who could donate blood no more dangerous than anybody else but are denied. Easily and feasibly? Such convenient words for discrimination. It was reported in 2000 that half America's blood banks called for the ban to be lifted. If I was in need of blood I would have no bother receving a gay mans blood once I knew it had gone through the same tests a straight persons had.

Thousands of black people are banned on a similar basis, it's the same discrimination but I don't hear you complain. Millions of Americans are discriminated against because we refuse to buy their ****ty blood products.

I.J.

Boston wrote: »

Yes, per capita you have a man has a higher change of getting HIV from another man then a woman has. Apart from that, Anal sex is far more risky. .

I assume these results are based on anal sex only. Because thats all Im referring to.

In regard to other groups and races, I'm sure they all may have a reason to argue in their favour too. I am a gay man so this is closer to my heart so I'll argue for gay men. I can't argue for everybody.

Reflector

No matter how you justify it it is discriminatory, for anyone. I understand the need to screen but I did donate before I had sex with a man when I was 17.(yes I lied about my age). I remember reading the form and it saying that if you have had unprotected sex with someone from subsaharan africa you must wait 12 months to donate. If you have had sex with a man you can never donate.
That is just wrong.
If you are having lots and lots of sex with multiple partners you are high risk if you are not you are not a high risk.
In any case if I really wanted to give blood I would just lie as I think that a ****ed up bigoted system shouldn't get in the way of peoples lives.

Rev Hellfire

Reflector wrote: »

In any case if I really wanted to give blood I would just lie as I think that a ****ed up bigoted system shouldn't get in the way of peoples lives.

Yes clearly anyone who wants to should just lie and give blood.
I mean if it feels right why not :rolleyes:

philologos

I.J: I understand that these people may have hurt your feelings, but it appears that these guys were in the right if I am reading Bostons statistics correctly. Personally I think it shouldn't be a big deal to take blood from homosexuals as long as the blood is tested properly, if this can be guaranteed that is.

You need to understand that people have differing views than your own, and if you are not willing to be able to tolerate differing opinions perhaps you shouldn't raise points that are likely to be controversial. Your point was kind of off-topic as well if I'm understanding the general course of your discussion.

I.J.

Jakass, I accept people have different views. Stop trying to twist this like you so often do to your own agenda. It was the delight they took in saying it that was the problem. For somebody who really does have a problem with homosexuals and I know you do, you show up on this particular group a lot.

philologos

I'm not twisting anything I.J. You are claiming that guys who had a different point of view to you on blood donation, were bigoted, discriminatory, homophobic and regressive (against equality) when they clearly were nothing of the sort. A highly unfair assessment if you ask me.

N.B - I don't have a problem with homosexuals in the slightest, I merely disagree on certain issues. If you look above, I have even said that if proper screening took place homosexuals should be fine for giving blood. I just think you were unfair to your friends. If you aren't willing to tolerate other peoples responses to what you say, you might want to consider if you can handle their opinions.

As for showing up on this forum, am I not entitled to read posts here?