Blood donation safety question

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

It's a matter of reducing the risk factor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Brigadier wrote: »

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

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

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

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

door wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

door wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Brigadier wrote: »

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

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


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

beegirl wrote: »

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

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

Infectious diseases passed from mother to child during pregnancy.

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

Uriel. wrote: »

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

Infectious diseases passed from mother to child during pregnancy.

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

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