Britain abandons total ban on gay blood donations

Scarinae

I thought this was interesting - Britain has apparently lifted a total ban on gay blood donations, according to the Nature News blog:

Britain has overturned its ban on blood donations from gay men, provided that they have not had sex in the last 12 months.

The issue of blood donation from ‘men who have sex with men’ (MSM) has been a fraught one since most countries implemented a blanket ban after the rise of AIDS. America is mulling ending its ban on blood donations from gay males, while other countries have implemented their own policies for taking donations after a certain length of time since the donor’s last sexual encounter.

Now a review of the science by the UK’s Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs has concluded that the risk of an infection being transmitted via donated blood will not be increased by allowing MSM who have not engaged in oral or anal sex in the last 12 months to donate. This period of time in necessary due to the risk of Hepatitis B, which can be infectious for a long period even when at undetectable levels.

“The evidence does not support a permanent ban,” said Deirdre Kelly, a hepatologist and member of the advisory committee.

This decision has been accepted by the health ministers of England, Scotland and Wales where gay men who meet the criteria will be able to give blood from 7 November. Northern Ireland’s minister Edwin Poots is taking more time to consider his decision, says Kelly. She says there is no evidence that would justify Northern Ireland implementing a different policy to other parts of the United Kingdom.

“There has been a growing sense that the lifetime ban was no longer right,” says Nick Partridge, chief executive of AIDS charity the Terrence Higgins Trust. “It had begun to seem unfair and unreasonable. I welcome the new rule.”

He admitted that the new rule would still mean most gay men could not donate blood.

The ruling came as a new study published in the BMJ showed that 10.6% of MSM had donated blood in Britain, 2.5% of them in the previous 12 months. Reasons given for donating in violation of the lifetime ban included self-categorisation as low-risk and the perceived unfairness of the total ban. A one year deferral period “is likely to be welcomed” by MSM, the authors concluded.

However the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has already called the 12 month period “excessive and unjustified”.

“Most gay and bisexual men do not have HIV and will never have HIV. If they always have safe sex with a condom, have only one partner and test HIV negative, their blood is safe to donate. They can and should be allowed to help save lives by becoming donor,” said Tatchell in a statement.

Peter Tatchell's statement is here:

Excessive restrictions cause needless blood shortages

“Although the new policy is a big improvement on the existing discriminatory rules, a 12 month ban is still excessive and unjustified. Most gay and bisexual men do not have HIV and will never have HIV. If they always have safe sex with a condom, have only one partner and test HIV negative, their blood is safe to donate. They can and should be allowed to help save lives by becoming donors,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

Mr Tatchell and the gay rights group OutRage! launched the first campaign against the blanket, lifetime ban on gay and bisexual blood donors in 1991.

“I have been campaigning for 20 years for an evidence-based policy which protects the blood supply while not needlessly discriminating against men who’ve had sex with men,” he added.

“The 12 month ban will apply even if gay and bisexual men always use a condom and even if they test HIV-negative.

“Protecting the blood supply is the number one priority but ensuring blood safety does not require such a lengthy time span during which gay and bisexual men are barred from donating blood.

“The blood service could have opted for a much shorter exclusion period. It should focus on excluding donors who have engaged in risky sexual behaviour and those whose HIV status cannot be accurately determined because of the delay between the date of infection and the date when the HIV virus and HIV antibodies manifest and become detectable in an infected person’s blood.

“Reducing the exclusion period for blood donations from gay and bisexual men should go hand-in-hand with a ‘Safe Blood’ education campaign targeted at the gay community, to ensure that no one donates blood if they are at risk of HIV and other blood-borne infections due to unsafe sexual behaviour.

“We also need a major drive to vaccinate gay and bisexual men against Hepatitis A and B, to prevent these infections getting into the blood supply.

“In addition, the questionnaire that would-be blood donors have to answer should be made more detailed for men who’ve had sex with men, in order to more accurately identify the degree of risk, if any, that their blood may pose. A few additional questions would improve donor awareness of risk factors and more accurately exclude those whose blood may not be safe.

“There is a strong case for only excluding men who’ve had risky sex without a condom.

“Sadly, the blood service’s new policy makes no distinction between sex with a condom and sex without one. Any oral or anal sex between men in the previous 12 months - even with protection - will be grounds for continuing to refuse a donor under the new rules. This is unjustified. If a condom is used correctly, it is absolute protection against the transmission and contraction of HIV. Men who use condoms every time without breakages – and who test HIV negative - should not be barred from donating blood.

“With these provisos and safeguards, a shorter exclusion period would be reasonable and not endanger the blood supply. The blood donated would be safe,” said Mr Tatchell.

Peter Tatchell is the Director of the human rights advocacy organisation, the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

Is this a step forward, or do you think that it is still a needless restriction? Do you think Ireland might follow suit in future? I know that the IBTS want to be careful in the wake of the hepatitis scandal, but their rules are so rigid they're turning away a lot of perfectly good blood.

plein de force

the 12 month thing is still ridiculous imo
if we follow suit we should go the whole hog and just let us donate.

paddyandy

I hope they don't make being a PERVERT compulsory.IT would probably begin in America where All Rotteness on this Island came from an a little from britain and our own idigenous minority.

Rick_

So, how they gonna prove you ain't been doing naughty stuff for 12 months? What tests are there to prove this, or are they expecting us gays to be honest and not lie for the sake of helping others?

"I'm horny as hell and dying for a ride but no-one would touch me, at least for the last year... so I'm here to donate blood. I'll be in the waiting room whenever you're ready for me." :rolleyes:

Annasopra

Paddy C wrote: »

So, how they gonna prove you ain't been doing naughty stuff for 12 months? What tests are there to prove this, or are they expecting us gays to be honest and not lie for the sake of helping others?

"I'm horny as hell and dying for a ride but no-one would touch me, at least for the last year... so I'm here to donate blood. I'll be in the waiting room whenever you're ready for me." :rolleyes:

Probably self reporting

Scarinae

Paddy C wrote: »

So, how they gonna prove you ain't been doing naughty stuff for 12 months? What tests are there to prove this, or are they expecting us gays to be honest and not lie for the sake of helping others?

"I'm horny as hell and dying for a ride but no-one would touch me, at least for the last year... so I'm here to donate blood. I'll be in the waiting room whenever you're ready for me." :rolleyes:

They're not going to try to prove it, they base it on a questionnaire and an interview. The first article that I posted refers to a paper published today in the British Medical Journal (which is here, and is open access) that found some men gave blood anyway despite the ban:

10.6% of men with experience of penetrative sex with a man reported having donated blood in Britain while ineligible under the exclusion criterion, and 2.5% had donated in the previous 12 months. Ineligible donation was less common among men who had had penetrative sex with a man recently (in previous 12 months) than among men for whom this last occurred longer ago. Reasons for non-compliance with the exclusion included self categorisation as low risk, discounting the sexual experience that barred donation, belief in the infallibility of blood screening, concerns about confidentiality, and misunderstanding or perceived inequity of the rule.

WonderWoman!

The real Issue should be that the blood is OK regardless of who the hell it's from

baby and crumble

I never understood this ban, surely all blood is screened before is goes anywhere anyway? All they're doing is making sure that a whole swathe of people are denied the ability to donate perfectly healthy blood, at a time when they are crying out for it. I don't understand.

KnifeWRENCH

baby and crumble wrote: »

I never understood this ban, surely all blood is screened before is goes anywhere anyway? All they're doing is making sure that a whole swathe of people are denied the ability to donate perfectly healthy blood, at a time when they are crying out for it. I don't understand.

I'm not a biology expert or anything but I think certain infections don't always show up on blood screening. I read somewhere that, although HIV can sometimes show up in a screening within a few days of the person being infected, it may also take up to six months for it to show up in other cases. And I think Hepatitis B is another one that doesn't always show up during blood screening.

This is not say I agree with the blood ban; the IBTS claim that it's statistically too risky to allow MSM to give blood but I wonder how much of that is actually based on statistics/science and how much is just down to prejudice and the gay stereotype of 'Johnny Promiscuous'. In an ideal world there would be no blood ban but at least this new 12 months rule is better than a blanket ban on perfectly good blood. Hopefully something similar will happen over here.

Aishae

baby and crumble wrote: »

I never understood this ban, surely all blood is screened before is goes anywhere anyway? All they're doing is making sure that a whole swathe of people are denied the ability to donate perfectly healthy blood, at a time when they are crying out for it. I don't understand.

Never understood it either. Aids is the main concern yeah? But aids is not restricted to gay men like they once thought. And the blood has to be screened anyway.... It's a start but a bit half hearted.

They're crying out for blood but turn you down for the simplest reasons without even testing. They told me I can't because of the surgeries I've had which would be fair enough if they had tested the blood. But they didn't.

To be honest im thinking they should just take blood if it's offered then test it thoroughly after. And if it's a person they suspect should not give blood then they can whatever test they feel is necessary.

L1011

This basically provides no change in the ban for gay men but releases the probably huge number of people who had "an experience" when younger but nothing since from the ban.

Those would generally have lied anyway. One of my mates would see himself as straight but has definitely met the Irish ban conditions (and probably within the last 12 months...) but gives blood here anyway.

Annasopra

MYOB wrote: »

Those would generally have lied anyway. One of my mates would see himself as straight but has definitely met the Irish ban conditions (and probably within the last 12 months...) but gives blood here anyway.

Your friend might lie but that does not prove all men who have sex with men generally lie

Vojera

baby and crumble wrote: »

I never understood this ban, surely all blood is screened before is goes anywhere anyway?

The reasoning is that blood is screened in batches (so a mixture of lots of people's donations) and the idea is that if one infected person donates then all those donations have to be discarded and they don't think it's worth losing that much blood when it's already in short supply. It's too expensive to screen donations individually.

WhosUpDocs

Vojera wrote: »

The reasoning is that blood is screened in batches (so a mixture of lots of people's donations) and the idea is that if one infected person donates then all those donations have to be discarded and they don't think it's worth losing that much blood when it's already in short supply. It's too expensive to screen donations individually.

They don't homogenize blood anymore not since the late 80s I don't think when there was massive HepB infection from a single batch of infected homogenized platelets.

Since I'm vaccinated against Hep B and practice safe sex why should I have an exclusion clause of 12 months? Surely I'm on the same risk level as any 20 something straight male, no?

L1011

mango salsa wrote: »

Your friend might lie but that does not prove all men who have sex with men generally lie

I'd say the vast majority of people who had one or two experiences twenty years ago do, actually.

WonderWoman!

I think they could be fxcking with peoples lives by not allowing certain groups of society to donate and that is amoral if you ask me

The_Minister

WonderWoman! wrote: »

I think they could be fxcking with peoples lives by not allowing certain groups of society to donate and that is amoral if you ask me

Not really - they have a list of people (I'm on it) who they call in if they run short of blood - sometimes they have to delay an operation (and that's only once in a blue moon) but as I understand it, no one dies from a lack of blood right now.

Aishae

The_Minister wrote: »

WonderWoman! wrote: »

I think they could be fxcking with peoples lives by not allowing certain groups of society to donate and that is amoral if you ask me

Not really - they have a list of people (I'm on it) who they call in if they run short of blood - sometimes they have to delay an operation (and that's only once in a blue moon) but as I understand it, no one dies from a lack of blood right now.

If you bleed out / haemorrhage during surgery and they haven't enough blood because it's a bigger bleed than you'd normally have to prepare for- it's a possibility

Vojera

WhosUpDocs wrote: »

Vojera wrote: »

The reasoning is that blood is screened in batches (so a mixture of lots of people's donations) and the idea is that if one infected person donates then all those donations have to be discarded and they don't think it's worth losing that much blood when it's already in short supply. It's too expensive to screen donations individually.

They don't homogenize blood anymore not since the late 80s I don't think when there was massive HepB infection from a single batch of infected homogenized platelets.

Since I'm vaccinated against Hep B and practice safe sex why should I have an exclusion clause of 12 months? Surely I'm on the same risk level as any 20 something straight male, no?

My apologies, I was just repeating what I was told when I last donated.

I agree that you should be allowed to donate blood and it's my personal opinion that the gay community is generally better informed about the risks of stds etc because there is a much more focussed information campaign.

Alopex

Vojera wrote: »

My apologies, I was just repeating what I was told when I last donated.

I agree that you should be allowed to donate blood and it's my personal opinion that the gay community is generally better informed about the risks of stds etc because there is a much more focussed information campaign.

statistics suggest otherwise. despites making up 5% of the population approx 50% of the hiv positive results are msm. and thats skewed because another large percentage are african immigrants from high risk regions

Craguls

Alopex wrote: »

statistics suggest otherwise. despites making up 5% of the population approx 50% of the hiv positive results are msm. and thats skewed because another large percentage are african immigrants from high risk regions

The statistics will always be skewed though especially since the pool you're drawing from is so small.

I could never give blood anyway due to a heart condition but I can't say I'd fully support MSM donations at present. IBTS (much like everything else) is underfunded as it is and is understandably paranoid due to the Hep scandal years back. Plus given my course background, I can see how the resources to properly test for the diseases most prevalent in MSM patients would be impossible to fund at present due to time and money constraints.

Would I like to see MSM blood donations in Ireland someday? Yes but only provided the correct resources were available. Imagine if any MSM prevalent disease got into the supply? Tabloids would have a field day.

Alopex

Craguls wrote: »

The statistics will always be skewed though especially since the pool you're drawing from is so small.

I could never give blood anyway due to a heart condition but I can't say I'd fully support MSM donations at present. IBTS (much like everything else) is underfunded as it is and is understandably paranoid due to the Hep scandal years back. Plus given my course background, I can see how the resources to properly test for the diseases most prevalent in MSM patients would be impossible to fund at present due to time and money constraints.

Would I like to see MSM blood donations in Ireland someday? Yes but only provided the correct resources were available. Imagine if any MSM prevalent disease got into the supply? Tabloids would have a field day.

Well I mean its not that small. Its still 2-300 people a year. If you took all the white natives alone the vast majority of those who cath HIV/Hep C/B will be MSMs or IV drug users.

I see people are asking about the blood being checked so it shouldn't matter about history. It is of course but we have to remember another element - human error. If something goes wrong somewhere its best that high risk groups are kept out of the system.

I'm banned myself from having a genetic blood condition. I can donate in other countries because my blood is suitable for most people but I'm guessing Ireland isn't set up to efficiently check who is or isn't suited. no biggie - its not like people have a human right to donate blood like.

There's other groups who are banned and it seems harsh. Take those who have used anabolic steroids. They're banned because they have injected a non-prescription drug. This is really to cover heroin injecters but due to the wording they are banned too - even though there's no reason or evidence they would share needles.

That was a good post though. I think its pretty clear this issue is not about homophobia as is often suggested and moreso the relevant issues you mentioned.