Blood donation safety question

door

I decided to post this here after having hoped to find an answer on the Health Sciences page but after over 70 views nobody could answer.

I'm writing out of interest (and want to warn people not to jump the gun on whether this a campaign for gay rights, its out of medical interest).

On the Irish Blood transfusion website they say never give blood if:
You are a male who has ever had anal or oral sex with another male, even if a condom or other form of protection was used.

What I am curious about is that from this, I am gathering that women who are the receivers of anal sex from a man are of no danger and their blood will always be perfect. Whats the difference between and a man and womans anus with regard to picking up any infection? I had assumed that this part of the body would be no different between the sexes.

In reference to oral sex. Once again I'm curious, is a man's body ingesting sperm somehow different to a woman's?

kfallon

Thinly veiled "Campaign for Gay Rights" thread :pac:

danniemcq

women who take it up there probably aren't clean enough to give blood anyway

Ghandee

Someone with the username 'door' asking about anal sex.
Is your first name back?

Nodin

kfallon wrote: »

Thinly veiled "Campaign for Gay Rights" thread :pac:

I had thought it was going to be 'Will my details be sold on to Vampires?' but on reading the OP, I feel you're correct.

Kiera

danniemcq wrote: »

women who take it up there probably aren't clean enough to give blood anyway

So if you're a woman and you take it up the arse you're filthy? Even a sneaky finger?

kfallon

Kiera wrote: »

Even a sneaky finger?

I see you are finally starting to think like me, excellent, my plan is working

Uriel.

It's a matter of reducing the risk factor.

Typically, you are right there is no difference between a woman receiving anal sex and a man receiving.

Anal sex is one of the primary risk factors in HIV transmission. Gay men presenting to a blood donation clinic would obviously be proportionally far more exposed to this risk factor than a woman.

HIV rates proportionally are far higher in the gay community than the "straight" community.

Better testing technology has decreased the chances of an undetectable infection but cannot be given as fool proof.. Anything that reduces the risk of contaminated blood entering the system is important.

Unfortunately it's just the way it is and not a blanket discrimination on the gay community

There is not difference between a woman and man's anus in terms of infection and the same with oral sex etc... the difference is, the risk factor for HIV or HPC etc.. in a gay sexual encounter is far higher than in a heterosexual encounter.

door

Thanks for the response Uriel. Although I could argue flaws with this, it wasn't my aim to debate that side of things here. Taking that that just maybe less straight women have anal sex than gay men and they want to reduce the numbers who show up to blood donation, the issue of oral sex still leaves me confused. How this could be any different to a woman. Its hard to see how this could be different. To be blunt, and excuse me if this is a bit crude, but I'm sure there are more women giving blow jobs out there to men, than there are gay men giving blowjobs.

**Timbuk2**

I've heard that it's because gay people are supposed to be more risky for HIV/AIDS than straight people, probably due to various reasons, like years ago when it wasn't as acceptable to be homosexual and more gay people went 'underground' than straight people.

I'm not sure - that's only what I've heard.

prinz

door wrote: »

..it wasn't my aim to debate that side of things here..

You'll go far. Why is grass green? It's not may aim to debate cholorphyll....

The Brigadier

So if you were a gay man who had not had sex since your last clean HIV test could you give blood?

I'm a happily married man so this doesn't apply to me. We do however have a shortage of blood donors and this sort of sweeping action is just silly.

Nodin

Kiera wrote: »

So if you're a woman and you take it up the arse you're filthy? Even a sneaky finger?

You cheapen the act of love with your lewd flippancy. Its notable the decline in tone of this forum coincided with your arrival.

AnonoBoy

Nodin wrote: »

You cheapen the act of love with your lewd flippancy. Its notable the decline in tone of this forum coincided with your arrival.

Yes I too remember when After Hours was a bastion of ontological debate.

Heady times they were indeed.

Nodin

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Yes I too remember when After Hours was a bastion of ontological debate.

Heady times they were indeed.

True Sir. Gentleman could relax and exchange ideas in a rarified atmosphere not seen since the heyday of The Mysogynists Club off Stephens Green.

Uriel.

The Brigadier wrote: »

So if you were a gay man who had not had sex since your last clean HIV test could you give blood?

I'm a happily married man so this doesn't apply to me. We do however have a shortage of blood donors and this sort of sweeping action is just silly.

No you can't. Are you likely to be clean in terms of HIV/HPC etc.. Yes.

But the administration of the blood donation scheme cannot work like that. It is quicker, easier to manage and less risky to just broadly exclude certain risk factor groups

door

The Brigadier wrote: »

So if you were a gay man who had not had sex since your last clean HIV test could you give blood?

I'm a happily married man so this doesn't apply to me. We do however have a shortage of blood donors and this sort of sweeping action is just silly.

As you have brought up this point, I think its a moment I should also comment. I also believe it is silly because there are constantly statistics being reported of more HIV with heterosexual people, especially straight women. There are actually more straight women under 30 with HIV than gay men but these women are freely allowed donate blood. Nonetheless the law stays the same. It is a law which came about at a time of ignorance about HIV and of homosexuality in 1977. It is quite outdated now and like many laws which are still written will most likely soon get overturned as it has in a great deal of countries around the world. For example, in Spain the law has been changed and funnily enough, Ireland receives Spanish blood so therefore it makes the law being applied in Ireland somewhat pointless.

Uriel.

door wrote: »

Thanks for the response Uriel. Although I could argue flaws with this, it wasn't my aim to debate that side of things here. Taking that that just maybe less straight women have anal sex than gay men and they want to reduce the numbers who show up to blood donation, the issue of oral sex still leaves me confused. How this could be any different to a woman. Its hard to see how this could be different. To be blunt, and excuse me if this is a bit crude, but I'm sure there are more women giving blow jobs out there to men, than there are gay men giving blowjobs.

Of course there are flaws. Theoretically, every single person presenting themselves to donate should be treated as individuals, and tested to Nth Degree in terms of possible infection, whereby 100% guarantee that infection is not present is available etc... but in practice that can't happen for a number of reasons, so instead high risk groups must be broadly excluded unfortunately.

On the oral sex issue - it's not a matter of the number of women giving blowjobs. It's the risk factor involved in terms of infection from HIV etc...

A gay/bi-sexual male is statistically, more likely to be exposed to HIV than a straight man. It's all about proportions. A woman blowing a straight male in the vast vast vast vast vast majority of cases is not going to be exposed to HIV.

Also, by implication, in general, if you perform oral sex on other men, you are more likely to have has anal sex with other men also.

It's simply down to, on a proportional basis there being statistically higher HIV rates among the gay community when compared to heterosexuals.

Big Nasty

Kiera wrote: »

So if you're a woman and you take it up the arse you're filthy? Even a sneaky finger?

Sneaky finger?

Personally I like the minivan - 2 in the front and five in the back!:eek:

The Brigadier

Uriel. wrote: »

Of course there are flaws. Theoretically, every single person presenting themselves to donate should be treated as individuals, and tested to Nth Degree in terms of possible infection, whereby 100% guarantee that infection is not present is available etc... but in practice that can't happen for a number of reasons, so instead high risk groups must be broadly excluded unfortunately.

On the oral sex issue - it's not a matter of the number of women giving blowjobs. It's the risk factor involved in terms of infection from HIV etc...

A gay/bi-sexual male is statistically, more likely to be exposed to HIV than a straight man. It's all about proportions. A woman blowing a straight male in the vast vast vast vast vast majority of cases is not going to be exposed to HIV.

Also, by implication, in general, if you perform oral sex on other men, you are more likely to have has anal sex with other men also.

It's simply down to, on a proportional basis there being statistically higher HIV rates among the gay community when compared to heterosexuals.

Surely promiscuity is a factor. Is a straight woman who has sex with a different man every week more likely to HIV than a gay man who has only ever had the same partner?

The_Minister

door wrote: »

As you have brought up this point, I think its a moment I should also comment. I also believe it is silly because there are constantly statistics being reported of more HIV with heterosexual people, especially straight women. There are actually more straight women under 30 with HIV than gay men but these women are freely allowed donate blood. Nonetheless the law stays the same. ....

Firstly, if you have HIV you are not allowed donate, so those women are not allowed donated blood.

Second, active gay males make up around 5% of the population.
Heterosexual women make up around 48-49%.
Just because more women have HIV in terms of numbers, it is still far more likely that a gay man will have HIV.

And the majority of those women are from Sub-Saharan Africa, and are diagnosed shortly after arrival - they are not allowed donate for 6-12 months after arriving (Malarial area/tropical area restrictions).

So you are comparing apples and oranges.

Uriel.

door wrote: »

As you have brought up this point, I think its a moment I should also comment. I also believe it is silly because there are constantly statistics being reported of more HIV with heterosexual people, especially straight women. There are actually more straight women under 30 with HIV than gay men but these women are freely allowed donate blood. Nonetheless the law stays the same. It is a law which came about at a time of ignorance about HIV and of homosexuality in 1977. It is quite outdated now and like many laws which are still written will most likely soon get overturned as it has in a great deal of countries around the world. For example, in Spain the law has been changed and funnily enough, Ireland receives Spanish blood so therefore it makes the law being applied in Ireland somewhat pointless.

There might be more truly heterosexual people with HIV than there are gay men. But it's the proportions that matter.

take for example (these are not factual statistics - but just for mathematical illustration):

1,000 (heterosexual) men with HIV out of a purely male heterosexual population of 1,000,000 - that is 1 in 1,000 infected.

10 gay men with HIV in a population of 1,000 purely male homosexuals. - that is 1 in 100.

So there are 100 times more infected heterosexuals than there infected homosexuals. but the chances of getting an infected male is 10 greater in the gay proportion than it is in the heterosexual population

Teyla Emmagan

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Sneaky finger?

Personally I like the minivan - 2 in the front and five in the back!:eek:

Interesting. I must go home and practice that on myself later..

Uriel.

The Brigadier wrote: »

Surely promiscuity is a factor. Is a straight woman who has sex with a different man every week more likely to HIV than a gay man who has only ever had the same partner?

Of course it is, when speaking about HIV transmission rates and risk factors.
Although, that woman may never get HIV if she doesn't meet a heterosexual man with the infection. And a once off with such a man is also unlikely to lead to transmission.


But anyway, from a blood donation point of view it can't get that complicated. Loads of factors come into.

beegirl

door wrote: »

I decided to post this here after having hoped to find an answer on the Health Sciences page but after over 70 views nobody could answer.

I'm writing out of interest (and want to warn people not to jump the gun on whether this a campaign for gay rights, its out of medical interest).

On the Irish Blood transfusion website they say never give blood if:
You are a male who has ever had anal or oral sex with another male, even if a condom or other form of protection was used.

What I am curious about is that from this, I am gathering that women who are the receivers of anal sex from a man are of no danger and their blood will always be perfect. Whats the difference between and a man and womans anus with regard to picking up any infection? I had assumed that this part of the body would be no different between the sexes.

In reference to oral sex. Once again I'm curious, is a man's body ingesting sperm somehow different to a woman's?

On the form you fill in when you go to donate there are more questions, including:

You are a female who has ever had sex with a male who has ever had anal or oral sex with another male, even if a condom or other form of protection was used

Which is interesting - how are you supposed to know this for sure? Anyway I think it shows that it isn't to do with oral/anal sex being different whether it is a woman or a man, but simply to do with excluding a large group of the population who are deemed to be at greater risk for HIV i.e. gay men (or women who have had sex with gay/bisexual men!) Whether that is right/wrong is a whole other debate!

There are a few other really mysterious questions on there, I would love to know the logic behind some of them... like "have you ever handled monkeys and their bodily fluids" (WTF???) Was you mother born in South America (Why just your mother???) And many, many more really odd questions that I can't remember right now....

Kiera

Nodin wrote: »

You cheapen the act of love with your lewd flippancy. Its notable the decline in tone of this forum coincided with your arrival.

Eh? I've been lowering the tone of this forum a lot longer than you've been around, buddy!

Guy:Incognito

Kiera wrote: »

So if you're a woman and you take it up the arse you're filthy? Even a sneaky finger?

Yeah but it's the good kind of filthy that lads like, so dont worry, you're all good.

Uriel.

beegirl wrote: »

There are a few other really mysterious questions on there, I would love to know the logic behind some of them... like "have you ever handled monkeys and their bodily fluids" (WTF???) Was you mother born in South America (Why just your mother???) And many, many more really odd questions that I can't remember right now....

Infectious diseases from Monkeys - such as HIV, where it originated.

Infectious diseases passed from mother to child during pregnancy.

All normal risks and therefore valid questions, even if unlikely.

kelle

The Brigadier wrote: »

So if you were a gay man who had not had sex since your last clean HIV test could you give blood?

I'm a happily married man so this doesn't apply to me. We do however have a shortage of blood donors and this sort of sweeping action is just silly.

Well, I can't give blood because I lived in the UK for more than 12 months between 1980-1996! Yet I'm sure they would happily take my blood in the UK.

Soon, there'll be so many limitations nobody in Ireland will be able to give blood!

beegirl

Uriel. wrote: »

Infectious diseases from Monkeys - such as HIV, where it originated.

Infectious diseases passed from mother to child during pregnancy.

All normal risks and therefore valid questions, even if unlikely.

Yeah I'm sure there is a valid reason behind each and every one, it makes for some very bizarre reading though, especially when the reasons behind them aren't explained - they seem so random :eek:

Uriel.

beegirl wrote: »

Yeah I'm sure there is a valid reason behind each and every one, it makes for some very bizarre reading though, especially when the reasons behind them aren't explained - they seem so random :eek:

They sure do, gives a bit of laugh though as your waiting around I guess

**Timbuk2**

Do they actually have a shortage of blood donors though?

They don't run out of blood, so there should be enough, no? Or are they getting the additional necessary blood from elsewhere? Or is it that regular blood donors are becoming too old to donate now and there aren't enough 'new' donors to replace them?

Gummy Panda

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Sneaky finger?

Personally I like the minivan - 2 in the front and five in the back!:eek:

I'm stealing that!

El Weirdo

beegirl wrote: »

On the form you fill in when you go to donate there are more questions, including:

You are a female who has ever had sex with a male who has ever had anal or oral sex with another male, even if a condom or other form of protection was used

Which is interesting - how are you supposed to know this for sure? Anyway I think it shows that it isn't to do with oral/anal sex being different whether it is a woman or a man, but simply to do with excluding a large group of the population who are deemed to be at greater risk for HIV i.e. gay men (or women who have had sex with gay/bisexual men!) Whether that is right/wrong is another whole debate!

There are a few other really mysterious questions on there, I would love to know the logic behind some of them... like "have you ever handled monkeys and their bodily fluids" (WTF???) Was you mother born in South America (Why just your mother???) And many, many more really odd questions that I can't remember right now....

FYP

The Brigadier

kelle wrote: »

Well, I can't give blood because I lived in the UK for more than 12 months between 1980-1996! Yet I'm sure they would happily take my blood in the UK.

Soon, there'll be so many limitations nobody in Ireland will be able to give blood!

I didn't know that was in place. Guess that rules me out.

Dravokivich

It's quite simple, as mentioned earlier it's to iliminate the risk of infected blood... infected by anything...

They can't waste the blood received by a donor through testing it and whenever I've been in they've always emphasised that donating blood should not be used for getting tested/screened...

kelle wrote: »

Well, I can't give blood because I lived in the UK for more than 12 months between 1980-1996! Yet I'm sure they would happily take my blood in the UK.

Soon, there'll be so many limitations nobody in Ireland will be able to give blood!

Any additional limitations would be added as a result of additional risks... it's not in their interest to stop people from donating blood.

It's in their interest to provide clean blood... or did you not hear about all those hep scandals not too long ago?

...wait ...it seriously couldn't have been that long ago could it?

pow wow

beegirl wrote: »

On the form you fill in when you go to donate there are more questions, including:

You are a female who has ever had sex with a male who has ever had anal or oral sex with another male, even if a condom or other form of protection was used

Which is interesting - how are you supposed to know this for sure?

Awesome ice-breaker when looking up ex-boyfriends on facebook

Capt'n Midnight

kelle wrote: »

Well, I can't give blood because I lived in the UK for more than 12 months between 1980-1996! Yet I'm sure they would happily take my blood in the UK.

Soon, there'll be so many limitations nobody in Ireland will be able to give blood!

The IBTS base their rules on the results of tests on the blood given by donors. (they had the head of the IBTS on UK news interview recently and he did say that men who were promiscous with women wern't as shown to be as big a risk as some other groups.) The rules can and do change over time - but it's mostly evidence based which is why some of the rules seem odd. ( "once even a long time ago" )

The rule back in 2008 was that you were allowed give blood if you had been to South Africa, unless you have been to the Kruger National Park, in which case you had to wait a year.

In the past I wasn't allowed to give blood at all. Rules changed and then I was able to donate. I'm not allowed to donate in Ireland until October because of other rules, other than that it's every 3 months when I'm eligible.


There is no prohibition on donating blood based on sexual preferences. The only prohibitins are to do with activities that been linked with risk.

Another very important point to remember is the IBTS has been involved in two major scandals in the past due to penny pinching with health budgets. Hep C and the haemophilics (in the case of the latter it nearly seemed that the Govt was dragging things things along waiting for them to die to save money on claims :mad: ). So the IBTS has to be squeaky clean and probably has to have higher standards than other countries. There are diseases out there with incubation periods of the order of 30 years, cba looking up the name of the 100% fatal disease you get from eating human brains - weird stuff like that exists.

Screening questions are needed because you can't guarantee 100% that the testing of donated blood will pickup everything. People may be in the early stages and so not have developed enough antibodies to show up on tests, it's not economically feasible to test every donation for every possible disease. It's also impossible to test for unknown diseases (seriously).


If living in the UK in the past is the only reason stopping anyone from giving blood then donate next time you are in the UK. In fairness many of the people winging about this are at least semi regular visitors to the UK so not really an issue IMHO.

IIRC you could probably also donate up North, and going out on a limb here but I seem to remember (I could be wrong) that if you get a group together the NIBTS will send down a coach to bring ye up and back.

http://www.nibts.org/questions.htm

What is involved in the donor HealthCheck questionnaire?

This is a structured questionnaire, which asks important questions about the donor's general health, medication, lifestyle and travel. These questions are important to ensure that the donation procedure is safe for the donor and that the donation is safe for the recipient of the blood. It also includes a declaration consenting to the donation being tested for certain transfusion transmissible infections (see following FAQs).

New donors and donors who haven't given in the last two years (lapsed donors) must complete a personal interview with our Medical Officer or Registered General Nurse on session.

What are donations currently tested for?

All donations are tested for HIV I & II and HCV (Hepatitis C virus) by antibody tests and nucleic acid testing (NAT). Hepatitis B surface antigen, HTLV antibodies and syphilis antibodies are also tested for.

Will these tests absolutely exclude infection by these viruses in the donor?

The short answer is no. Infection is screened for by antibody tests and as it takes the body some time (days to weeks depending on the infection) to form antibodies, there will be a time period when the donor could have the infection but not yet have formed detectable antibodies. This is known as the 'window period'. One way of reducing the window period is to test for direct viral material, called nucleic acid testing. This type of test is available for HIV and HCV. However, in very early HIV or Hepatitis C infection, this test may also be negative.

This is why the donor HealthCheck questionnaire includes important questions on lifestyle, as we cannot rely exclusively on laboratory testing for ensuring the safety of blood

watna

I'm not allowed to give blood in New Zealand because I lived in Ireland for more than 12 months during the nineties. I presume this is to do with BSE although I seem to remember there not being cases in Ireland (or maybe one or two). People who lived in France and the UK during the same time period are also banned from giving blood, ever.

I was surprised at that, I thought only if you'd lived in the UK you wouldn't be allowed to. It makes you think though, are Irish people potentially giving loads of tainted blood to each other - if we are barred from donating in another country as we lived in Ireland at a certain time. I've a friend who works for the blood service, he loves to debate this stuff with me after a few. I don't enjoy it nearly as much!

Interesting about the Kruger National Park - I was there at Christmas. I didn't realise that makes me such a vector of nasty diseases!

EDIT: It seems the NZ blood service also have rules on male to male anal and oral sex but they're not quite as strict

* Male to male sexual activity: You must not give blood for FIVE YEARS: Following oral or anal sex with or without a condom with another man (if you are male)

So they only limit it for sex without a condom and for five years. Interesting.

door

At the end of the day, the ban on 'male to make' sex is purely discriminatory and an attack on gay people, because it bans a person if they have had anal or oral sex with another man even just once. This is not saying that you are part of promiscuous group and we need to cut out higher risks. This is saying, 'cause your gay we dont trust ya'. I don't go along with this eliminating groups, I feel thats just a cop out because other countries have for long periods now started taking "gay" blood and dont have a problem with it. The further we go West (in the western world), from uk to ireland to america, the slower things take to catch up with equality and realising superstitions are only just that. If they want to cut out higher risks, just cut out anybody who is promiscuous. Its horrible to think that the majority of the straight people I know are allowed donate blood, because they are revoltingly promiscuous. In America, black people apparently have the higher rate of HIV. Can you imagine if we started banning people from donating blood because they were black! Its no different because it would be saying to a black person 'sorry because your fellow black people are full of AIDS we cant take your blood, even if you only ever had sex with one person and both of you had perfectly clean blood'. Now replace the word black with gay.

And if anything here gets disputed, I'll also add, we get "gay" blood from Spain injected into us in Ireland when we need blood. So wheres the logic now in the Irish ban?

axer

door wrote: »

In reference to oral sex. Once again I'm curious, is a man's body ingesting sperm somehow different to a woman's?

Well the difference is the man obviously has the ghey and we all know how contagious that is.

Annasopra

The Brigadier wrote: »

So if you were a gay man who had not had sex since your last clean HIV test could you give blood?

I'm a happily married man so this doesn't apply to me. We do however have a shortage of blood donors and this sort of sweeping action is just silly.

No - you can't

Capt'n Midnight

door wrote: »

At the end of the day, the ban on 'male to make' sex is purely discriminatory and an attack on gay people, because it bans a person if they have had anal or oral sex with another man even just once.

If you had bothered to read the previous posts you'll have noticed the ban is in place because of ongoing evidence from blood tests.

Of course they won't ban people because of their colour :rolleyes:
They would ban individuals because of behaviour and other risk factors.


No one is being banned because they are gay. Some people don't want to understand that I can only assume it's because they want to be offended.


People who have lived in the UK are banned from giving blood here. Please explain how that fits in to the "anti-gay" conspiracy. Seriously please explain.

Q. Does having having sex with a man who has sex with another man make you gay ?
A. From an infection point of view when you sleep with many partners, you've slept with them too.
Also that rule bans women.
One use of steroids also rules you out.

If you are going to complain about a rule, please get the facts first, and if other groups are being treated worse make damn sure you support them to otherwise you area asking for prefferential treatment.

/RANT

RDM_83 again

In terms of the resident of UK thing to follow the logic of CJD risk, they should probably ban people from cavan, Monaghan and Donegal from donating considering the amount of shopping done in NI, and also the cattle smuggling that used to occur

SerialComplaint

It's great to see that many of the posters on this thread seem to know more about donating and collecting blood than the full-time medical PhD experts over at IBTS.

I'll be quite happy to accept a blood donation in future that's been collected based on rules put together by a few boards.ie posters. Sure who needs all those doctors etc

Bottle_of_Smoke

door wrote: »

At the end of the day, the ban on 'male to make' sex is purely discriminatory and an attack on gay people, because it bans a person if they have had anal or oral sex with another man even just once.

Yes it is clearly an attack on gay people. That's why gay women aren't allowed to donate right?