Blood Donation

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.

1ZRed

gpf101 wrote: »

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.

There is sense in banning a big portion of potential HIV cases because I now understand that the screening process isn't 100% effective and reliable so I get that.

But as Pendant said, it would make more sense, and it would be fairer, to ban any person who has had anal sex. That's where this whole issue more or less stems from - easier transmission of the HIV virus through unprotected anal sex.

I'm interested to know if the ban on MSM donations still apply to gay/bi men that don't have anal sex?

Aurongroove

sorry, but this again;

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

...who cares if gay men can't give blood? it's their loss (the blood dudes) 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?

Complaining about not being able to donate blood seems pointless. The option to donate blood is not a necessary freedom needed for one to live one's life; "oh no! I can't donate blood if I so choose. What sort of sick country am I living in!?"
AND you have completely equal access to the blood supplied by people who are called on to donate their blood.


The stupid ****ing guilt-trip ad comes on, someone willy-nilly on the street "I'm afraid of needles" or "I don't have the time". Cuts to a patient lying in bed "I'm afraid of dying" or "I don't have much time left".
Well sorry pal, my excuse isn't that I'm afraid of needles or that I don't have the time, my excuse is I'm gay which by your guideline means I'm not allowed to donate. Thanks for covering me with absolutely no obligation on my part if I ever need an operation though.

There is no issue: 'We' have it the best way possible. or am I wrong?

Caiseoipe19

1ZRed wrote: »

I'm interested to know if the ban on MSM donations still apply to gay/bi men that don't have anal sex?

The reason MSM is used instead of Gay/Bi is because they don't care about the man's sexuality. What's relevent is whether or not he has had oral or anal sex with another man. If he has not then why wouldn't he be allowed? If you look at the sample form xsibrog posted a while back...

1ZRed

Cygnus wrote: »

The reason MSM is used instead of Gay/Bi is because they don't care about the man's sexuality. What's relevent is whether or not he has had oral or anal sex with another man. If he has not then why wouldn't he be allowed? If you look at the sample form xsibrog posted a while back...

I'm very well aware of what MSM (men who have sex with men) means. I just noticed the mistake I made there in that post.
I also know damn well that HIV can be transmitted through semen and other fluids but I asked because I wondered that it might only be men who engaged in anal sex that were banned.

And before you say it, I know HIV can be contracted through oral sex but in comparison* to unprotected anal sex, the risk is negligible.

*only by comparison. I don't want to be giving you any more fodder.

Annasopra

Cygnus wrote: »

The reason MSM is used instead of Gay/Bi is because they don't care about the man's sexuality.

Not quite - It's actually used because there are some men who have sex with men who don't identify as gay or bi

Here's a very interesting discussion on why it's such a bad term to use

http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/nchecrweb.nsf/resources/HeppReports/$file/The-term'MSM'demeans-us-all.pdf

Caiseoipe19

1ZRed wrote: »

I'm very well aware of what MSM (men who have sex with men) means. I just noticed the mistake I made there in that post.
I also know damn well that HIV can be transmitted through semen and other fluids but I asked because I wondered that it might only be men who engaged in anal sex that were banned.

And before you say it, I know HIV can be contracted through oral sex but in comparison* to unprotected anal sex, the risk is negligible.

*only by comparison. I don't want to be giving you any more fodder.

Which is why I suggested you take a look at the sample form posted by xsiborg in which it asks about having either oral or anal sex? I've quoted his post below.

xsiborg wrote: »

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.

1ZRed wrote: »

I don't want to be giving you any more fodder.

Eh, okay?

Caiseoipe19

mango salsa wrote: »

Not quite - It's actually used because there are some men who have sex with men who don't identify as gay or bi

Here's a very interesting discussion on why it's such a bad term to use

http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/nchecrweb.nsf/resources/HeppReports/$file/The-term'MSM'demeans-us-all.pdf

Ah yeah that's what I meant, just the previous post had just referred to gay/bi men. As in straight men can fall under that category as well. I'll take a read of that when I get a chance though!

xsiborg

Cygnus wrote: »

mango salsa wrote: »

Not quite - It's actually used because there are some men who have sex with men who don't identify as gay or bi

Here's a very interesting discussion on why it's such a bad term to use

http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/nchecrweb.nsf/resources/HeppReports/$file/The-term'MSM'demeans-us-all.pdf

Ah yeah that's what I meant, just the previous post had just referred to gay/bi men. As in straight men can fall under that category as well. I'll take a read of that when I get a chance though!

and not just straight men either, but also straight women, where the question is asked-

"have you ever had anal sex with a man who has had sex with another man?".

1ZRed has raised an interesting point though, i presume if you are a gay man who has not had anal or oral sex with another man, then you could indeed give blood?

Annasopra

xsiborg wrote: »

1ZRed has raised an interesting point though, i presume if you are a gay man who has not had anal or oral sex with another man, then you could indeed give blood?

Yes of course

Caiseoipe19

xsiborg wrote: »

and not just straight men either, but also straight women, where the question is asked-

"have you ever had anal sex with a man who has had sex with another man?".

But while those are excluded, for 12 months anyways, they wouldn't fall under the MSM category? Along with men/women that have injected themselves or had sex with anyone who may have had sex in a part of the world where HIV/AIDS is common.

Now after reading some of that article there, the boundaries aren't as clearcut as they seem...

xsiborg wrote: »

1ZRed has raised an interesting point though, i presume if you are a gay man who has not had anal or oral sex with another man, then you could indeed give blood?

Yeah that's what it seems to be, from that form anyways.