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?

Untense

The argument is that 'MSM' are a higher risk group and AIDS has a window period of up to 6 months where it's undetectable.

But given that they test all donations for HIV, a wiser move would surely be to ask MSM if they have had sex within the past 6 months. If they have, they could be refused on the much more reasonable grounds that a possible infection could not be detected.

Annasopra

1ZRed wrote: »

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

You don't know that you are clean. You can't know that you are completely STI free until you have been tested!

1ZRed

mango salsa wrote: »

You don't know that you are clean. You can't know that you are completely STI free until you have been tested!

You're completely right. Don't worry I won't be foolish and do something stupid because I think I'm disease free but I guarantee you, if I got tested it would all come back clean.

In fact I think I should get tested soon because I've been with guys for a while now.
Now I know I really can't say I'm 100% STI free because it's ignorant for me to think that way but I go to a great length to make sure I don't catch anything. I'm not just looking out for myself but who ever I'm with also so it's important to me to be safe.

Rev Hellfire

1ZRed wrote: »

I guarantee you, if I got tested it would all come back clean.

In fact I think I should get tested soon because I've been with guys for a while now.

Those two statements don't seem to reconcile themselves.

the_syco

1ZRed wrote: »

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

You either know that you're clean as you were tested, or you assume you are clean as your partners have said that they're clean. Assumptions are the mother of all f**k ups, though.

rochey84

the_syco wrote: »

You either know that you're clean as you were tested, or you assume you are clean as your partners have said that they're clean. Assumptions are the mother of all f**k ups, though.

While sexual health awareness is a very important issue I think the thread is getting a little (not overly) derailed here with that issue! Are there any more opinions on the IBTS and the ban?

whattotdo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18476308


Its the same in UK also...very discriminating comments

1ZRed

whattotdo wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18476308


Its the same in UK also...

But I thought UK MSM were allowed to give blood if they hadn't had sex with a man in over a year?

I'm more interested in this:
"And so someone who has sex with somebody in Africa or sex with prostitutes, I am very reluctant about those people being able to give blood."

Ok Africa has a higher rate of HIV so I understand where he's coming from, but anyone who has had sex with a prostitute?
How many men would be truthful about that? I'm thinking more than likely they would lie about it.
And I get called the selfish bastard for wanting to do something good:rolleyes: (albeit by lying also)

Pedant

What about gay people who don't engage in anal sex?

Also, what about heterosexuals who engage in anal sex?

If they're worried about high risk sex (i.e. anal sex), why don't they just ban all those who've engaged in anal sex? Not just limit the ban to gay people.

xsiborg

1ZRed while i sympathise with your predicament, you'll achieve nothing by lying. if everyone were to take this attitude of "two wrongs make a right", then it will make the job of IBTS that much harder and more expensive to screen blood donations.

i am a blood donor myself for many years (straight male btw, married for seven years, havent had other partners in between). i also had hip surgery in 1999 during which i had an autologous blood transfusion. i have to put this down every single time on the form for the last 13 years, even though it was my own blood!

so last week i went in to donate blood as usual, and one of the questions on the form was "have you had an x-ray done in the last month". co-incidentally i'd had one done on my hip the previous week, so i answered "yes". went up with the form anyway and the nurse started going through the questions (asked me about the hip too, for the umpteenth time!), but when she got to the part about the x-ray, she asked me about it, and then told me i would not be allowed donate blood and i should see how everything pans out with the hip first and if any follow up procedures needed to be done.

as put out about it as i was, i can understand where they are coming from, and i see too where you are coming from. if someone though be they gay or straight, lies on the assessment form, that person is irresponsible and just makes the work of the IBTS that much harder.

as a gay man it is unfortunate that you are placed in a "risk" category, but there is a "risk" category for every single answer on that sheet. there's even a question on it for pregnant women believe it or not, because they simply cannot account for every single persons individual circumstances, and they depend on the individual to be as truthful as possible, to make their job easier.

i understand that you want to do the right thing (i watched an episode of "harry's law" recently on universal channel where a gay man was not allowed donate blood to his brother who had been in a car crash and only had hours to live, i understand its only a tv show, but it's an interesting premise!), but to lie in this instance would help nobody, and while you may feel better about yourself in the short term, can you imagine if everybody in the various risk groups decided they wanted to do the right thing too and lied on the form?

you're placing other peoples lives at risk, and whether you may be clean as a whistle or not, their time is taken up enough screening the blood of those who they have deemed less of a risk already. it might seem unfair to you, but these restrictions are there for a reason, the same way that i as a straight male have many restrictions placed on me, beyond just my sexual orientation.

1ZRed

Pedant wrote: »

What about gay people who don't engage in anal sex?

Also, what about heterosexuals who engage in anal sex?

If they're worried about high risk sex (i.e. anal sex), why don't they just ban all those who've engaged in anal sex? Not just limit the ban to gay people.

I think I made that point before but it's true. Gay men are far more likely to use a condom while having anal sex whereas a huge % of straight people go without yet the ban is solely on us.
Now I understand there is a higher % of HIV among MSM so I reluctantly let it slide.
But you can't deny the false logic behind it though.

Edit, @xsiborg I posted this before I read your comment and I think you're right, I really shouldnt do it regardless of how clean I am.
I'm going to get tested soon and I find it hard to be dishonest in general, nevermind for something like this so I'll take your advice on it because it's not really helping anyone for me to lie.
Thanks for showing it to me that way man:)

xsiborg

i just said i'd link to this here so other posters have a reference point to draw from and where the question is specifically asked. depending on your answers to ANY of these questions (they're not all yes or all no!), can preclude you from giving blood-

Sample Blood Donation Questionaire Form.

The Big Red Button

If I ever needed a blood transfusion, I would absolutely not give a crap if it gave from a straight person, a gay person, bi, transexual, whatever!

However I would very much like to be confident that the blood put into me was free of any infections. Which is why I've always assumed that all blood samples donated are fully screened for infections and diseases, before they are used for transfusion.

If this is the case, then, in my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to exclude anyone from donating. As any potential infections will be picked up as part of screening.

If this is not the case, then how can doctors be sure that the blood they're putting into patients is "clean"? To be honest, I'd be a lot happier to receive blood from some gay people I know in monogamous long-term relationships, than I would be to receive it from some very, erm, "friendly" straight people I know!!

It's not even just homosexual people. If you lived in England for more than one year between 1980 and 1996, you can't give blood. In a case like that, why can't they offer a one-off super-thorough blood test for everything to rule out whatever risk is there (or even just test for BSE, or whatever the specific risk is there) - and then, presuming all is clear, allow the people to donate in future? I mean, 16+ years later, surely any disease/infection would've showed up by now?!

I don't see how the IBTS can go on these big guilt-tripping campaigns looking for people to donate blood, when there are plenty of perfectly healthy people out there willing to donate blood, but not permitted to do so!

EugeneOnegin

chatterpillar wrote: »

If this is the case, then, in my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to exclude anyone from donating. As any potential infections will be picked up as part of screening.

It's not even just homosexual people. If you lived in England for more than one year between 1980 and 1996, you can't give blood. In a case like that, why can't they offer a one-off super-thorough blood test for everything to rule out whatever risk is there (or even just test for BSE, or whatever the specific risk is there) - and then, presuming all is clear, allow the people to donate in future? I mean, 16+ years later, surely any disease/infection would've showed up by now?!

I don't see how the IBTS can go on these big guilt-tripping campaigns looking for people to donate blood, when there are plenty of perfectly healthy people out there willing to donate blood, but not permitted to do so!

Unfortunately there's no magic test- there's no thorough test at all! It is practicably impossible to test everything with 100% sensitivity. Also no test currently exists for nvCJD or CJD (i.e. human BSE).

I guess the IBTS really just has to err on the side of caution and exlude those consider "high risk". MSMs are consider high risk and it's not really about the establishment being a bit incredulous about what they get up to. Homophobic sentiments like that play no role, rather that conclusion is based on extensive epidemiological data.
Absolutely discriminatory I know, because it's a blanket ban against MSMs (some of whom are of no risk at). BUT understandable giving the history of transfusion transmitted infections which is still such a raw and emotive topic.

Blood is a precious resource and must be protected to whatever extent. Also IBTS regularly review these policies and they are in line with current best practice as well as completely supported by evidence based medicine.

xsiborg

chatterpillar wrote: »

If I ever needed a blood transfusion, I would absolutely not give a crap if it gave from a straight person, a gay person, bi, transexual, whatever!

However I would very much like to be confident that the blood put into me was free of any infections. Which is why I've always assumed that all blood samples donated are fully screened for infections and diseases, before they are used for transfusion.

If this is the case, then, in my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to exclude anyone from donating. As any potential infections will be picked up as part of screening.

If this is not the case, then how can doctors be sure that the blood they're putting into patients is "clean"? To be honest, I'd be a lot happier to receive blood from some gay people I know in monogamous long-term relationships, than I would be to receive it from some very, erm, "friendly" straight people I know!!

It's not even just homosexual people. If you lived in England for more than one year between 1980 and 1996, you can't give blood. In a case like that, why can't they offer a one-off super-thorough blood test for everything to rule out whatever risk is there (or even just test for BSE, or whatever the specific risk is there) - and then, presuming all is clear, allow the people to donate in future? I mean, 16+ years later, surely any disease/infection would've showed up by now?!

I don't see how the IBTS can go on these big guilt-tripping campaigns looking for people to donate blood, when there are plenty of perfectly healthy people out there willing to donate blood, but not permitted to do so!

i imagine a lot of it has to do with the actual cost of getting these tests done, plus the amount of time it takes. imagine if they had to screeen every single pint of blood for every single infection known to man, the cost would be enormous. so they try i'd imagine the very same way as insurance companies do, to minimise the risk factors involved.

they cannot afford the luxury of making allowances for every individual circumstance, i used know a haemophiac who had to receive regular blood transfusions from completely anonymous donors so you can imagine how they would feel every time they had to travel up to dublin to have their bloods done. this was back in '95 when haemophilia was synonymous with AIDS and not much was understood about either disease, so making sure he received clean blood was not as simple as "my friend out in the waiting room is a regular blood donor the same type as me, can i not just have his blood". it's just not that simple, much as many of us would like to wish it was.

this was one of the reasons why i chose to have an autologous blood transfusion when i had my own surgery done. as much as i might be assured that anonymously donated blood was safe and tested, etc, i still rather use my own, even though it meant i was quite literally drained for the five weeks before the operation (extenuating circumstances meant we were working off a short time frame, so one pint per week over the four weeks was taken out, they needed four pints!).

so as comfortable as one person might be receiving a friend's blood, those are very much individual opinion, and someone else may not feel the same way. the IBTS has no way to account for this when a hospital takes in an unconscious crash victim that needs a blood transfusion to stay alive. they have to put their faith in the testing procedures of the IBTS to minimize the risks of the patient suffering any unforeseen circumstances. even minimising the risks as much as they can, sometimes things still can go wrong-

a quick google!

EugeneOnegin

xsiborg wrote: »

i imagine a lot of it has to do with the actual cost of getting these tests done, plus the amount of time it takes. imagine if they had to screeen every single pint of blood for every single infection known to man, the cost would be enormous. so they try i'd imagine the very same way as insurance companies do, to minimise the risk factors involved.

Yes, the tests are extremely expensive (not that one can actually put a price on maintaining a safe blood supply). The tests performed are fairly comprehensive, but of course you can't just rely on such tests. It's only prudent to take other precautions.

Also just as an FYI a unit of blood costs a couple of hundred squiggles to produce. Therefore it's important to adequate manage resources which aren't infinite!

Annasopra

chatterpillar wrote: »

If I ever needed a blood transfusion, I would absolutely not give a crap if it gave from a straight person, a gay person, bi, transexual, whatever!

However I would very much like to be confident that the blood put into me was free of any infections. Which is why I've always assumed that all blood samples donated are fully screened for infections and diseases, before they are used for transfusion.

If this is the case, then, in my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to exclude anyone from donating. As any potential infections will be picked up as part of screening.

You do know that it can take roughly 3 months for the HIV virus to show up in blood don't you?

LegacyUser

mango salsa wrote: »

You do know that it can take roughly 3 months for the HIV virus to show up in blood don't you?

How long do they keep and test the blood before they use it?

OldNotWIse

mango salsa wrote: »

You do know that it can take roughly 3 months for the HIV virus to show up in blood don't you?

As opposed to...how long does it take to bleed out and die if you've had an accident?

Nonoperational

Fozzydog3 wrote: »

the other half being ? :rolleyes:

I don't know why your throwing your eyes up to heaven to be honest. As hard as it is to estimate these things they reckon about 6.5% of white males in the US are MSM. So 6.5% of the population account for 50% of people living with HIV. Stop 6.5% of the population giving blood and you take away 50% of the HIV + cases. Rightly or wrongly that's the reasoning behind the restrictions.