End gay blood ban. - Page 3

dil_em_ma · 15th April 2008, 12:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer

Can't remember the exact wording, but it's something like 'engaged in intercourse with someone of the same sex'. Also, as far as bisexuals go, there are restrictions on their female partners as well, although that might be time limited.

Aye, a woman who has had sex with a man who has ever had sex with another man has to wait a year before giving blood. So i, for example, can't give blood unless i decide to stop sleeping with my boyfriend for a year.

endless psych · 15th April 2008, 12:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Witch

"Dr Brian McClelland, strategy director at ScotBlood, said: "This donor-selection rule is often misunderstood and perceived to be discriminatory. This is not the case.

"While the absolute number of cases of HIV in heterosexuals diagnosed annually is greater than for men who have had sex with men, when the size of the respective populations is taken into account it can be seen that the relative risk of exposure is very different."

He added: "Figures would indicate a man who has had sex with a man is seven times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual.

"Abolishing the rule for gay men would increase the risk of an HIV-infected donation entering the blood supply by about five times, and changing the rule to allow gay men to donate one year after they last had sex with a man would increase the risk by 60 per cent."" Mate this is 2008, it just smacks of homophobia

It doesn't actually it smacks of statistics is what it smacks of. It probably more then likely comes down to the cost of the screening process more then anything else.

Witch · 15th April 2008, 12:26pm

He doesnt say were he is getting these statistics from, thats where i have the problem "donating entering the blood supply by about ...." thats not very specific. He also states that figures WOULD indicate.

the statistics part of the news report states "The last available figures from the Office of National Statistics are from 2005 and show that HIV cases are rapidly on the increase among both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

In 2005 there were 4,049 new cases in the UK involving heterosexuals, compared with 840 in 1996.

In the gay community, the number of cases rose to a new record of 2,356 in 2005, from 1,553 in 1996."

In the 9 year gap, the amount of straight cases of HIV has went up by 3,029 people, whereas the gay cases have only went up by 803. Thats a big difference

MarkMono · 15th April 2008, 12:29pm

The next time the NHS complains of lack of blood, it might be worth pointing out that only accepting blood from celibate ubermensch might not be the best way to go. If people paid for blood then the law of supply and demand would resolve this immediately, as its a public service they can be as tight, misleading and corrupt as they feel like.

**LesMTS** · 15th April 2008, 12:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Witch

In the 9 year gap, the amount of straight cases of HIV has went up by 3,029 people, whereas the gay cases have only went up by 803. Thats a big difference

It's a meaningless difference until we know the sizes of both communities.
They are desperate for blood. I seriously doubt they'd make this policy on the basis of homophobia.
Remember also, it's not only gay people that are excluded from giving blood.

Witch · 15th April 2008, 12:33pm

some of the resrictions are there for a reason obviously, i don't see how they can justify the time difference with peircings/tattoos from Scotland to England, im curious as to if someone can enlighten me regarding that

Unfortunately the article doesnt state a community size, nor how the office of national statistics got this information, ill have a dig around to see what i can find

MarkMono · 15th April 2008, 12:34pm

We have different laws?

Witch · 15th April 2008, 12:37pm

In england you can give blood 6 months after a piercing/tattoo in scotland its a year

although the blood donation website says only to wait 6 months
the scottish one says a year

Hammer · 15th April 2008, 12:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesMTS

It's a meaningless difference until we know the sizes of both communities.
They are desperate for blood. I seriously doubt they'd make this policy on the basis of homophobia.
Remember also, it's not only gay people that are excluded from giving blood.

It's not like it's a new policy and it could be easily claimed that it was enacted in the 70s/80s due to a complete lack of understanding of AIDS and homosexuality. It does seem a tad archaic now, especially as the people who are saying it's a good thing don't seem to have a reasonable explanation for it, or at least the figures to back up their arguments.
Remember Les, not all scientists are as open-minded as you.

Baron Samedi · 15th April 2008, 12:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkMono

We have different laws?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Witch

In england you can give blood 6 months after a piercing/tattoo in scotland its a year

I think Mark's question was an answer. If you see what I mean.

Witch · 15th April 2008, 12:43pm

Yeah i get what you mean, im just curious as to why the law's different regarding blood donation

**LesMTS** · 15th April 2008, 12:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Witch

Unfortunately the article doesnt state a community size, nor how the office of national statistics got this information, ill have a dig around to see what i can find

Here's the office of national statistics website: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/
Seems they get their information from hunners of sources.

Foxglove · 15th April 2008, 12:44pm

Last time I went to give blood it was a 12 month wait from having a tattoo or piercing before a person can give blood again in England. However, I am unable to give blood at the moment due to being anaemic so this may have changed. You may also find that any disparity in the time you need to wait to give blood following a tattoo/piercing between England and Scotland is due to the size of population and number of blood units required/donated against the amount of units donated (could it be that comparatively more donations per head of population in Scotland are given?). Blood can only be kept for a short time before it has to be discarded if not used (a week from memory but I could be wrong) This may affect the time that the Blood Service ask you to wait before donating blood after a tattoo or piercing.

Also, should the consideration here not focus on the recipient and not the potential donors, as the focus in some of the posts above appears to be more to do with donors rights than the reason donations are given in the first place.

MarkMono · 15th April 2008, 12:45pm

Not surprising really, given that its the subject of the thread.

**LesMTS** · 15th April 2008, 12:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer

It's not like it's a new policy and it could be easily claimed that it was enacted in the 70s/80s due to a complete lack of understanding of AIDS and homosexuality. It does seem a tad archaic now, especially as the people who are saying it's a good thing don't seem to have a reasonable explanation for it, or at least the figures to back up their arguments.
Remember Les, not all scientists are as open-minded as you.

They're saying that it's seven times more likely for a gay man to have HIV than a heterosexual man.
If that's the case (and, as has been pointed out, no source is given), then it's quite sensible, in my mind, for them to be labelled as an "at risk" community. My first thoughts were "why should this matter if it's all screened", but Justine made the good point about cost/time effectiveness and there's also the issue that screening isn't perfect. Blood from one individual may be donated to several individuals. There's enough risk already in allowing "low risk" individuals to donate.