End gay blood ban. - Page 5

*LesMTS* · 15th April 2008, 7:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer

Nope. They'll take my organs, but not my blood.

The reasoning is that even though blood is in high demand, organs are in much higher demand still, so they're willing to take the risk. They couple this with the fact that organ donations are done almost exclusively for patients that are on death's door and the organ will only go to one person.
With blood, if it's true that homosexual males are seven times as likely to carry HIV than the general population, then they are being pretty sensible. A blood donation can end up going to hundreds of individuals, and the tests can give false negatives. If the statistics are correct then the homosexual male population will give seven times as many false negatives as the "rest". Also, cost-effectiveness dictates that they don't want to screen a group they know is going to give seven times as many useless samples.

It's absolutely nothing to do with discrimination and all to do with balancing statistics and risks we're willing to take.

Dec · 15th April 2008, 8:02pm

If we didn't get them the vote in the first place this wouldn't even be an issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesMTS

It's all to do with balancing statistics and risks we're willing to take.

Awrite Addy, calm down.

Hammer · 15th April 2008, 8:04pm

Out of interest, are there many other blood borne diseases, infections etc that can get past the screening?

Also, how long does blood remain useful for? Can it be frozen or otherwise stored in a useful condition for long periods of time?

evilglamcaitlin · 15th April 2008, 8:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer

Also, how long does blood remain useful for? Can it be frozen or otherwise stored in a useful condition for long periods of time?

Alright dracula.

*LesMTS* · 15th April 2008, 8:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer

Out of interest, are there many other blood borne diseases, infections etc that can get past the screening?

Also, how long does blood remain useful for? Can it be frozen or otherwise stored in a useful condition for long periods of time?

The main ones are malaria, viral hepatitis, CJD and HIV. Tests for anything can give false negatives. For example, you're not permitted to give blood if you've visited a high-malaria risk country.

Not sure how long it lasts. It depends what they're doing with it, I think. They seperate components out of some samples, and some is used as is.

Hammer · 15th April 2008, 8:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesMTS

The main ones are malaria, viral hepatitis, CJD and HIV. Tests for anything can give false negatives. For example, you're not permitted to give blood if you've visited a high-malaria risk country.

See, if they are willing to take blood that may have hep or CJD in it, then surely the argument about not taking blood that may be infected with HIV falls down? Or do CJD and Hep present more obvious symptoms sooner then then HIV?

Also, anyone know what the policy on blood donations in other European countries is?

*LesMTS* · 15th April 2008, 8:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer

See, if they are willing to take blood that may have hep or CJD in it, then surely the argument about not taking blood that may be infected with HIV falls down? Or do CJD and Hep present more obvious symptoms sooner then then HIV?

They're NOT willing to take blood from people in high risk categories for those diseases.
They are willing to take the risk of a false negative for all of these diseases in low or minimal risk groups.

Hammer · 15th April 2008, 8:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesMTS

They're NOT willing to take blood from people in high risk categories for those diseases.
They are willing to take the risk of a false negative for all of these diseases in low or minimal risk groups.

Stupid question alert here, but I'm going to push on anyway.

If I remember the news reports from the BSE scare in the 90s, it is possible for a human to carry the things (sorry not up to date with my biological terms) that cause nvCJD for up to 25 years and possible longer without any symptoms. So surely there are a good few thousand folks wondering around giving blood that is going to pass on nvCJD anyway?

Also, out of interest, what kind of groups are going to be at risk of Hep and CJD? I'd presume agricultural workers in close contact with cattle and sheep as far as CJD goes and medical professionals, police, people who have contact with blood and people swapping needles as far as Hep goes.

endless psych · 15th April 2008, 8:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer

Stupid question alert here, but I'm going to push on anyway.

If I remember the news reports from the BSE scare in the 90s, it is possible for a human to carry the things (sorry not up to date with my biological terms) that cause nvCJD for up to 25 years and possible longer without any symptoms. So surely there are a good few thousand folks wondering around giving blood that is going to pass on nvCJD anyway?

Is it possible to identify these thousand people as a risk group and thus stop them from giving blood? I'm assuming from previous discussion the answer is no. So its kinda irrelevent to your tubthumbing.

Quote:

Also, out of interest, what kind of groups are going to be at risk of Hep and CJD? I'd presume agricultural workers in close contact with cattle and sheep as far as CJD goes and medical professionals, police, people who have contact with blood and people swapping needles as far as Hep goes.

Folk that have used injection based drugs can't give blood.

*LesMTS* · 15th April 2008, 8:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer

Stupid question alert here, but I'm going to push on anyway.

If I remember the news reports from the BSE scare in the 90s, it is possible for a human to carry the things (sorry not up to date with my biological terms) that cause nvCJD for up to 25 years and possible longer without any symptoms. So surely there are a good few thousand folks wondering around giving blood that is going to pass on nvCJD anyway?

Nobody knows how many people are walking around with vCJD (they dropped the n recently) infective agent or even how to work out who might be. It seems likely that the risk has passed, anyway (although there are concerns that this may be an illusion due to genetic factors - all the patients so far have been part of a distinct genetic group, perhaps other groups just incubate for longer). The only way to guard against this risk would be to end blood donating in the UK completely. But other countries do have a ban on anyone donating blood if they spent a reasonable time in the UK during the 80s and early 90s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer

agricultural workers in close contact with cattle and sheep as far as CJD goes

You can't get CJD this way. There seems to be a risk from ingesting nerve tissue (although it's probably tiny, we just don't know yet), which is dependent on the amount of infective agent present in the tissue, and a risk from blood transfusion.

**Ghostsuit** · 15th April 2008, 10:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer

Also, anyone know what the policy on blood donations in other European countries is?

Different countrys have different policys some allow MSM donations some don't, it's all in the document I liked to earlier. Some believe the risk is acceptable while others don't. Oh and theres nothing to stop you lying, theres also nothing to stop an HIV positive person lying and donating blood either, it pretty much works on trust. Course the blood would still be tested.

http://www.blood.co.uk/pdfdocs/posit..._exclusion.pdf

McLeary · 15th April 2008, 10:58pm

I'd put it this way, if you're a homosexual male, in a monogamous sexual relationship, and both you and your partner had recently been tested for HIV/AIDs and were given the all clear, and you really desperately wanted to donate blood, it wouldn't be morally incorrect to just tell a few fibs on the question sheet. Otherwise, why put someone (or many people) at risk just to make a point? The same point goes for any other rampant hetero bumshaggers

Pantgirl · 15th April 2008, 11:14pm

I keep thinking this thread is called "End gay bloodbath" and get mad visions in my head

Tool_ogt · 15th April 2008, 11:24pm

I seen on the news that gay folk are still giving blood and just lying about their sexuality. Thats just fucking dumb they will know who's gay and who's not in a second everyone knows poofs blood Is pink and glittery.

**Ghostsuit** · 15th April 2008, 11:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tool_ogt

I seen on the news that gay folk are still giving blood and just lying about their sexuality. Thats just fucking dumb they will know who's gay and who's not in a second everyone knows poofs blood Is pink and glittery.

lol, nice let's hope the Junkies and those who have been to Africa recently don't want equal rights to give blood even though they are in a higher risk group.

Maybe it's just me that thinks I wouldn't like to put someones life at risk due to the fact I want to do something, I've wanted to give blood for the last 2 years but I've been tattoo in that time. I could be a wank and think fuck it and lie but I don't because I'm considered an increased risk, even though it was a very clean studio and 99% risk free.