Blood Donation

rochey84

Hey Folks,

Ok this has probably been covered before but this is something that really winds me up....

I hate hearing the ads on the radio looking for more blood donors, I would love to help out but I won't, not because I'm selfish but because due to discriminatory rules any MAN that has had protected or unprotected sex with another MAN can not donate. Now while this is obviously discrimination (disagree if you like) how has it never been challenged leagally?

I know that there will be a lot of responses here that say I could always lie etc, but I spent enough of my life lying about who I am and I don't want to go back to having to lie again even if it is for a good cause! Also I don't have the funds myself to challenge it and do I really want to be the 1 that takes a voluntery organisation that does do a lot of good through the courts!

I was gonna post this in AH but I read the thread about people not sticking around here so I figured that this might fit the bill of not being a staunch LGBT topic but still falling within the remit!

OldNotWIse

rochey84 wrote: »

Hey Folks,

Ok this has probably been covered before but this is something that really winds me up....

I hate hearing the ads on the radio looking for more blood donors, I would love to help out but I won't, not because I'm selfish but because due to discriminatory rules any MAN that has had protected or unprotected sex with another MAN can not donate. Now while this is obviously discrimination (disagree if you like) how has it never been challenged leagally?

I know that there will be a lot of responses here that say I could always lie etc, but I spent enough of my life lying about who I am and I don't want to go back to having to lie again even if it is for a good cause! Also I don't have the funds myself to challenge it and do I really want to be the 1 that takes a voluntery organisation that does do a lot of good through the courts!

I was gonna post this in AH but I read the thread about people not sticking around here so I figured that this might fit the bill of not being a staunch LGBT topic but still falling within the remit!

I understand your frustration. I am a lesbian but there are no measures in place that restrict donations from me. I donate but lately I have been thinking that maybe I should stop donating on principle until they reverse these ridiculous rules. (Kind of like some famous straight couples who refuse to get get married until gay people can) and I would be very tempted to make this stand...the only problem is, its the recipients who would suffer, and they are not the ones making the rules. But certainly if all the donors stood up tomorrow and said, "I will not be giving you any more blood until you stop discriminating against gay people" they would change their ways pronto!

1ZRed

It's so stupid that I can be an organ donor but I can't give my blood!?

I haven't given blood but I want to, so I'll lie to them. I figure I'm cleaner than a lot of straight guys that hardly ever wrap it up so there's no harm done as far as I'm concerned.

Even if I just get away with it once, it's still a bit of good done. And if the doctor asks if I've had sex with a man sometime after, I'll say I just discovered my sexuality "recently"

At least my intensions are good I suppose


EDIT: I have to admit I just skimmed over your post so I just picked up the bare gist of it but you should post this in AH. It's going to raise a bit of awareness to something that bothers and annoys a lot of us. What do you have to lose?

Dun

Well, be prepared to lie face to face - they actually go through all the questions face to face with you at your first donation (and every now and again afterwards, especially after a gap).

I am clean, have always been, and am in a long-term and completely monogamous relationship, so I have an untroubled conscience, even though it means I have to lie. I'm not using this for any sort of disease test, I'm doing it cause I believe I'm doing a bit of good for my fellow citizens.

Nonoperational

The fact remains that MSM are a much much higher risk for transmission of things like HIV. Half the people living with HIV in the US are MSM and over 60% of new transmissions are MSM. For the % of the population they make up that's absolutely huge. It's understandable if you can wipe out a large amount of risk while excluding a relatively small % of the population that you do it.

Lying about it would be pretty low to be honest. A public health decision has been taken in the best interests of the population in general. Yes blood is screened but the risk is still higher than the general population. An all out ban is probably overkill, but I would support at least a 12 month ban personally.

ninty9er

There are others who are excluded due to heightened RISK of infection. That is why there is no legal challenge.

I've had occasion to challenge the local IBTS officer and she always says the policy on all risk categories remain under regular review.

I'm not particularly aggrieved by it, but would like to be able to donate blood if I wished to do so.

Annasopra

I was having a discussion with a Portuguese friend about this. He contends that there should not be risk groups i.e. MSM, British people etc but that risk behaviour is where the focus should be i.e. straight people who have unprotected sex

Aurongroove

why don't you just put your hands up and say "well, I would help if I was allowed too but I'm not"?.

It's not like giving blood is a personal need; giving blood is a charity.
I wish chuggers on the street would except "sorry I'm gay, I'm not supposed to give charity" or people asking direction "sorry I'm gay, I'm not supposed to give directions"

who cares if gay men can't give blood? it's their loss and it means you're off the hook.

If their system is OK with me getting free blood whenever I need it with absolutely no personal burden to donate because of their rules, then who's complaining?

foggy_lad

gpf101 wrote: »

The fact remains that MSM are a much much higher risk for transmission of things like HIV. Half the people living with HIV in the US are MSM and over 60% of new transmissions are MSM. For the % of the population they make up that's absolutely huge. It's understandable if you can wipe out a large amount of risk while excluding a relatively small % of the population that you do it.

Lying about it would be pretty low to be honest. A public health decision has been taken in the best interests of the population in general. Yes blood is screened but the risk is still higher than the general population. An all out ban is probably overkill, but I would support at least a 12 month ban personally.

Most of those who identify themselves as MSM are straight single/married men who sleep around or with prostitutes as well as occasionally having sex with other men. These men are also far more likely to lie about having unprotected sex with dozens of different partners.

Dun

gpf101 wrote: »

Lying about it would be pretty low to be honest. A public health decision has been taken in the best interests of the population in general. Yes blood is screened but the risk is still higher than the general population. An all out ban is probably overkill, but I would support at least a 12 month ban personally.

A 12 month ban on what? Could you clarify what you are saying here? Are you saying that I am more of a risk in my long term monogamous gay relationship than an female friend of mine who has frequent heterosexual sex after a night out with various partners?

Nonoperational

It's nothing personal, individual cases aside the stats are clear that certain groups have a much much higher prevalence of certain risks than others. The risk is assessed on a population level. There are obviously individuals in every group that have a higher risk, those risks are excluded if people answer truthfully before donation.

Anyway I'm not out to get into an argument about it, I just wanted to put across the point that in my opinion there is some logic to the ban. Of course for people like you it is unfortunate but there is a reason for it all the same.

Annasopra

1ZRed wrote: »

It's so stupid that I can be an organ donor but I can't give my blood!?

I haven't given blood but I want to, so I'll lie to them. I figure I'm cleaner than a lot of straight guys that hardly ever wrap it up so there's no harm done as far as I'm concerned.

Even if I just get away with it once, it's still a bit of good done. And if the doctor asks if I've had sex with a man sometime after, I'll say I just discovered my sexuality "recently"

At least my intensions are good I suppose


EDIT: I have to admit I just skimmed over your post so I just picked up the bare gist of it but you should post this in AH. It's going to raise a bit of awareness to something that bothers and annoys a lot of us. What do you have to lose?

I think it's a really really bad idea to lie to them especially if you have not had a full clear STI test. To me it's totally unethical to do so.

OldNotWIse

I wouldnt really mind so much that they are excluding people based on stats...if they would stop sending me fcucking texts every other day asking for my blood! They are clearly not in a position to ban anyone (and one wonders about the effectiveness of their "screenings" if indeed ANY group has to be banned) - beggars can't be choosers..

Annasopra

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I wouldnt really mind so much that they are excluding people based on stats...if they would stop sending me fcucking texts every other day asking for my blood!

Have you asked them to?

OldNotWIse

mango salsa wrote: »

Have you asked them to?

Obviously not But like the rest of my post depicts, it is not solely the texts that are a problem - it is the texts in conjunction with the discrimination. If my post is read entirely and in context, this is clear.

rochey84

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I wouldnt really mind so much that they are excluding people based on stats...if they would stop sending me fcucking texts every other day asking for my blood! They are clearly not in a position to ban anyone (and one wonders about the effectiveness of their "screenings" if indeed ANY group has to be banned) - beggars can't be choosers..

This! I don't mind the exclusion as such, I can even to a degree understand it, however it's the begging ads on the radio, the stupid bucket collectors on the street! And like OldNotWise said above, how good are their screenings if they need to ban anyone makes me wonder about the "quality" of the blood that I may have to recieve one day!

Also as one poster mention mentioned, when approached by IBTS bucket collectors I do ask them if I'm allowed as a sexually active gay man to give blood, if they do not give me a straight yes I tell them that due to the unclear or negetive answer that I am banned from giving them money!

Most of the bucket collectors understand, the odd one shouts after me that they hope I never need the service!

the_syco

1ZRed wrote: »

so I'll lie to them

Lying to a medical board so that you can feel good about yourself? I would think that would be the definition of "selfish bastard".

OldNotWIse

rochey84 wrote: »

This! I don't mind the exclusion as such, I can even to a degree understand it, however it's the begging ads on the radio, the stupid bucket collectors on the street! And like OldNotWise said above, how good are their screenings if they need to ban anyone makes me wonder about the "quality" of the blood that I may have to recieve one day!

Also as one poster mention mentioned, when approached by IBTS bucket collectors I do ask them if I'm allowed as a sexually active gay man to give blood, if they do not give me a straight yes I tell them that due to the unclear or negetive answer that I am banned from giving them money!

Most of the bucket collectors understand, the odd one shouts after me that they hope I never need the service!

Hopefully none of us will but if any of us did, how many would give f*ck whether that blood came from a pink-cocktail flashing "one 'o them" or not...

I kind of can't wait to be approached by them now... oh wait, I'm a gay woman so they dont have an issue with me Maybe if I tell them I spent last weekend in the Congo watching gay porn with a bunch of monkeys whilst being paid for sex and snacking on a 1980's Brighton beef burger... :P

Aard

HIV totally freaks the crap out of me. Not a huge problem in practice, as I'm monogamous, but say if I were to be attacked by somebody with a syringe or something... Anyway, as such I'm quite glad that the ban on MSM is in place. OK, it inconveniences max ~5% of the population. Considering what was said above about HIV transmission rates, I can live with that one bit of "inequality".

I don't think lying in order to donate blood is a good idea. Unless you have some rare blood type - but even then it'd be iffy. Tbh I feel a bit like a Jehovah's Witness when it comes to receiving tranfusions too...

Pawwed Rig

I think the board has gone into complete overkill with the restrictions on donations at this stage. However this is in response to the various scandals that have plagued the organisation (Hep C etc).
For example they will not accept donations from a Uk citizen or anyone that has lived in the Uk, yet the Uk manages to have a similar blood board that takes donations.
I am not really sure about the HS male issue but would expect it to remain a policy for the forseeable future. A case taken to the court for discrimination may not be succesful if the blood board can show evidence that there is a higher risk with this blood than a hetro male.

rochey84

I understand that but given that every single donation should be fully screened should there not be a policy in place to allow everyone to donate once and should their sample show any signs of contamination then ban the indivual and not an entire cross section of society? As has been mentioned before there is just as much chance of a straight or lesbien person contracting HIV or AIDS these days as there is a gay man so instead of banning one section would they not be better off re-vamping their screening processes?

1ZRed

the_syco wrote: »

Lying to a medical board so that you can feel good about yourself? I would think that would be the definition of "selfish bastard".

I know I'm clean but as someone pointed out I should get tested to make sure.

How does that make me selfish? It wouldn't make me feel better, it's just that I've always been told it's the right thing to do (to give blood -not the lying about it). Even if it is just once I manage to do it.

Alright guys, I get where you're coming from but how many straight guys have messed around with other men and then lie to them because they're ashamed of what they've done? At least I know where I stand on what I've done, even if I might lie to about it. Doubt I'd be the first MSM to do it.

Look, I'll decide what I think is best so don't worry about me. I may lie, I may not. I could come around to seeing it in a different light who knows.

Pawwed Rig

rochey84 wrote: »

I understand that but given that every single donation should be fully screened should there not be a policy in place to allow everyone to donate once and should their sample show any signs of contamination then ban the indivual and not an entire cross section of society? As has been mentioned before there is just as much chance of a straight or lesbien person contracting HIV or AIDS these days as there is a gay man so instead of banning one section would they not be better off re-vamping their screening processes?

I wouldn't argue with any of that

OldNotWIse

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I wouldn't argue with any of that

Me too. I made this point a while back (but afaik it has been ignored) - if a screening process is limited to the point that it must discriminate against entire groups) then how successful is it? Frankly, it sends out the message that they dont trust their own screening.

Perhaps the system should be altered to avoid insulting gays and infecting straights - gay people can just donate to other gay people, and straight people can just donate to other straight people. Also, straight recipients could have the option of accepting blood from gay donors provided they "know the risk"

OldNotWIse

1ZRed wrote: »

I know I'm clean but as someone pointed out I should get tested to make sure.

How does that make me selfish? It wouldn't make me feel better, it's just that I've always been told it's the right thing to do (to give blood -not the lying about it). Even if it is just once I manage to do it.

Alright guys, I get where you're coming from but how many straight guys have messed around with other men and then lie to them because they're ashamed of what they've done? At least I know where I stand on what I've done, even if I might lie to about it. Doubt I'd be the first MSM to do it.

Look, I'll decide what I think is best so don't worry about me. I may lie, I may not. I could come around to seeing it in a different light who knows.

True, or straight men who use prostitutes behind their wifes back.

Fozzydog3

gpf101 wrote: »

The fact remains that MSM are a much much higher risk for transmission of things like HIV. Half the people living with HIV in the US are MSM and over 60% of new transmissions are MSM. For the % of the population they make up that's absolutely huge. It's understandable if you can wipe out a large amount of risk while excluding a relatively small % of the population that you do it.

Lying about it would be pretty low to be honest. A public health decision has been taken in the best interests of the population in general. Yes blood is screened but the risk is still higher than the general population. An all out ban is probably overkill, but I would support at least a 12 month ban personally.

the other half being ? :rolleyes:

rochey84

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Me too. I made this point a while back (but afaik it has been ignored) - if a screening process is limited to the point that it must discriminate against entire groups) then how successful is it? Frankly, it sends out the message that they dont trust their own screening.

Perhaps the system should be altered to avoid insulting gays and infecting straights - gay people can just donate to other gay people, and straight people can just donate to other straight people. Also, straight recipients could have the option of accepting blood from gay donors provided they "know the risk"

If you look at the top post on this page I did not ignore your post at all! It is something that I agree with, maybe I just took your post and re-worded it a bit! Sorry I didn't mean to steal your idea! or have it look like I stole your idea

OldNotWIse

rochey84 wrote: »

If you look at the top post on this page I did not ignore your post at all! It is something that I agree with, maybe I just took your post and re-worded it a bit! Sorry I didn't mean to steal your idea! or have it look like I stole your idea

No no I never meant that you stole my idea! Sorry!

1ZRed

OldNotWIse wrote: »

True, or straight men who use prostitutes behind their wifes back.

But what kills me is that I always use a condom- I've never gone without.
I even studied up on safe sex and HIV before I became sexually active because I thought its the responsible thing to do.

Fair enough a large % of gay men have anal sex so it's understandable the HIV risk is higher I'll give them that. But we have been told again and again to practice safe sex while doing so.

Straight guys don't feel the need because the girl can't get pregnant. I know a few of my friends have shown interest in anal sex (don't know if they've followed through or not) but they said at least they wouldn't have to wear a condom!
And here's me, the dumbass that makes sure he uses one and can't give blood but they can!
That's the part that doesn't make sense to me.

Pawwed Rig

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Me too. I made this point a while back (but afaik it has been ignored) - if a screening process is limited to the point that it must discriminate against entire groups) then how successful is it? Frankly, it sends out the message that they dont trust their own screening.

Perhaps the system should be altered to avoid insulting gays and infecting straights - gay people can just donate to other gay people, and straight people can just donate to other straight people. Also, straight recipients could have the option of accepting blood from gay donors provided they "know the risk"

That would take a huge amount of organisation due to the fact that blood is perishable. If a gay person need x litres of a type of blood there would be a good chance that this would not be available if they were to rely on just gay donors (presuming you are being serious in your point).
The issues were that historically their screening process was not effective and people contracted disease because of this. Now they are so afraid of being sued that they have had a knee jerk reaction (which has subsequently become policy).

I don't know any of the figures regarding the transmission of disease HIV, Hep etc and if it has a higher rate in the HS male community or not. Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge on this topic could clarfiy

rochey84

1ZRed wrote: »

I know I'm clean but as someone pointed out I should get tested to make sure.

How does that make me selfish? It wouldn't make me feel better, it's just that I've always been told it's the right thing to do (to give blood -not the lying about it). Even if it is just once I manage to do it.

Alright guys, I get where you're coming from but how many straight guys have messed around with other men and then lie to them because they're ashamed of what they've done? At least I know where I stand on what I've done, even if I might lie to about it. Doubt I'd be the first MSM to do it.

Look, I'll decide what I think is best so don't worry about me. I may lie, I may not. I could come around to seeing it in a different light who knows.

To a degree I would agree with you on this, if you have been tested independantly and are clean, and they are crying out for blood and you're willing to donate maybe you should lie.

For me my not wanting to lie stems from the fact that they have told me that my blood isn't good enough due to circumstances beyond my control and they have done it on what feels like a whim without even testing my blood or allowing someone else to test it and acknowledge it!

Here is an idea I just thought of:

Why don't IBTS and GMHC combine what they do, if you get tested by the GMHC and you are clear, you have the option to have your details shared with IBTS otherwise you can't donate, is that not a kind of meeting in the middle?