Giving blood and its associated homophobia

[T]

I'm not afraid of gay people I just don't think it is natural or right.

So you are then.

Errrr no, I pity them.

If its so natural why are gay people so afraid to tell there families? It's because they are ashamed.

I wasn't ashamed to tell my family, so that specific part of your view is null and void. It's as natural as being straight, and if you think otherwise, you're clearly intolerant of human nature.

RE: Blood. I've also removed myself from the organ register, after being on it for the past few years, due to apparent lack of understanding and acceptance in the whole system.

 

[Tom]

The argument about any particular group being more likely or not to have HIV/AIDS is irrelevant because they don't exercise that fact fully and to more sound examples.

As far as I'm aware they don't ask if you were born - or have been sexually active in - an African nation where HIV/AIDS is rife?

 

[DiogoJ42]

A friend of mine had to get an AIDS test before the bank would give her and her husband a mortgage. The bank insisted they both have life insurance to cover payments, and as he grew up in South Africa (dispite being a British national born in the UK), they both had to get tested to get the insurance.

Make of that what you will.

 

[T]

A friend of mine had to get an AIDS test before the bank would give her and her husband a mortgage. The bank insisted they both have life insurance to cover payments, and as he grew up in South Africa (dispite being a British national born in the UK), they both had to get tested to get the insurance.

Make of that what you will.

Is this genuinely true? If so, a bank forcing a HIV test is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I would take my custom (and blood) elsewhere.

 

[DiogoJ42]

In fairness, the bank just told them to get life insurance. But for that they had to get medicals, and the insurance company freaked out when they realised he had lived in africa. I don't know what company it was.

 

[Lurker]

As far as I'm aware they don't ask if you were born - or have been sexually active in - an African nation where HIV/AIDS is rife?

The questions asked when giving blood include:

Male Only - "Are you a man who has had oral or anal sex with a man in the past 12 months, with or without a condom?"

Female Only - "In the last 12 months have you had sex with a man who has ever had oral or anal sex with another man, with or without a condom?"

"In the last 12 months have you had sex with anyone who is HIV positive or anyone with hepatitis B or hepatitis C?"

"In the last 12 months have you had sex with anyone who may ever have had sex in parts of the world where AIDS/HIV is very common (this includes most countries in Africa)?"

"Have you been outside the UK (including business) in the last 12 months?"

"Were you born or have you ever lived or stayed outside the UK for a continuous period of over 6 months or more?"

"So yes, they do ask you where you was born, where you have been and will know if that is a country has a high % of the population with HIV/AID."

They also say

The special problem of HIV and Hepatitis viruses

Every single blood donation is tested for HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) and hepatitis B and C.
Infected blood isn't used in transfusions but our test may not always detect the early stages of viral infection.
The chance of infected blood getting past our screening tests is very small, but we rely on your help and co-operation.
People who carry these viruses may feel healthy for many years.

Lying about any of the questions which they ask you can endanger peoples lives, even if you are fairly sure you don't carry any STDs is it not better to be truthful?

Test if you can give blood here - http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/donor-health-check/

My personal opinion is that while i do feel it seems counter productive to reject perfectly fine blood just because they have had sex with someone of their own gender, patient safety is paramount and until there is a test which is 100% sure that blood is safe they should still screen people to statistically reduce the risk.

While it's unfortunate, it's important to remember that it's not a personal attack on gays or your sexual health. It's just an attempt to minimise the number of infected blood that gets donated, and that is for the patients safety.

I'm gay, just incase you were wondering.

 

[Dave]

The issue i have is why isn't one question...

Male or Female: In the past 12 months have you ever had unprotected sex with a non- monogamous sexual partner.

I think the issue people have is that you can have as much unprotected heterosexual sex as you like and that's fine.

If your Heterosexual and think you not going to catch something having unprotected sex then you are deluded.

 

[Lurker]

I see the issue, but i think the only way to really explain it is with statistics.

"an estimated 96,000 people were living with HIV in the UK, including about 73,400 people diagnosed with HIV and 22,600 who were infected but undiagnosed"

"In 2011, an estimated 40,100 men who have sex with men (MSM) were living with HIV in the UK"

Which means that nearly half of all the population with HIV are also "MSM". If you then also factor in the ratio of straight:gay you will see that it is a significant portion of the gay/bi community that do have HIV.

if you then also take out the 30,800 African born heterosexuals who have HIV and live in the UK (who are also rejected) you will see that actually nearly 90% of people with HIV are rejected before even being tested... which reduces the chances quite significantly.

This isn't blind homophobia in my eyes, it's reducing risk. Which is a huge shame, because of course there are many HIV free gays who could give blood safely and would reduce the desperate need for blood.

I feel as though it's not worth a fight to change this, if that means it's going to increase the amount of infected blood getting into the system. The reason i wanted to donate blood was to help people, and i fear pushing for a change at the moment could lead to more infected blood.

And there is a question which asks if you suspect you have HIV or Hep A/B ... which should be answered true if you are having unprotected sex with people whose sexual health you don't know or trust, until you have taken STD tests.

stat source - http://www.nat.org.uk/HIV-Facts/Statistics/Latest-UK-Statistics.aspx

 

[Dave]

However that is taking a very focused view on a single health issue, syphillis another blood born STI is on the rise, especially in heterosexual sex. There are also a variety of other retro-virus's transmitted via sex that normally are benign but can cause encephalitis in people, especially those with a weakened immune system. And then we have hepatitis, also transmitted sexually (especially Hep B) and this doesn't have the same homosexual transmission trends as HIV.

Seen as blood transfusions often are given to immunocompromised patients even potentially curable diseases are a threat to the recipient. I get the feeling the ban on homosexuals is to a point lip-service to say they are screening at risk groups when they know they can't do the same for the heterosexual majority as there will be no damn blood left.

HIV is not the only virus in the world, also every test available accurately detects HIV after 6 months (most diagnosis are made within 3 months). The rules as they stand ate based on detection technology from over 10 years ago.

I'm not ashamed to say HIV is a gay problem, it's just not the only one.

 

[EuroSatch]

My issue is the statistics are interpreted incorrectly. Yes, HIV occurrences is more concentrated on the gay male population, but it does not directly mean that the majority of male gay population carry HIV. Same as all bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs

 

[Lurker]

My issue is the statistics are interpreted incorrectly. Yes, HIV occurrences is more concentrated on the gay male population, but it does not directly mean that the majority of male gay population carry HIV. Same as all bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs

If this is a reply to me, i didn't say majority. My words were "significant portion", which is this case means a high enough percentage to stop them giving blood. And if they don't screen gay people, they also can't stop africans because they are less infected.

I was just reading some more about the accuracy of STD tests in general, and found that HIV false negatives are fairly rare, it's false positives that are the bigger problem. Another reason why rejecting those who are at highest risk of undiagnosed HIV might not be the best thing to do.

It's interesting, and i have to say i'm no medical professional, i mostly trust what the doctors have decided upon what is allowed and what isn't. The give blood people do get a lot of flame over being homophobic so i have to believe that if they could change it and still keep patients safe, they would.

And obviously Dave, if they said no to both straights and gays, you're left with only the sexually inactive people who can donate and that is nowhere near enough people. So they remove the highest risk groups for STDs, a necessary evil, i would think. Although i don't know the stats for other viruses.

I have to say, it does sadden me as i can no longer donate blood. Had a target to reach! But i actively encourage my friends to donate to replace the lost blood from me. Makes me feel slightly better.

If everyone who could donate blood, did, we wouldn't be having blood shortages anyway.

 

[Dave]

The highest risk group for STI's are those that practice un-safe sex.

If you take HIV out of the equation (which is only one of a number of STI's) then there is statistically no difference between Straight and Gay communities that don't play safe. And as said the testing window for HIV is a lot shorter than 12 months these days.

It just seems that they are losing out on donors for little to no risk benefit, i don;t think they are homophobic, i just think they have a double standard and that filtering out "at risk" heterosexual groups would eat into their donations too much so they take the risk.

 

[Nada]

"IT'S NOT NATURAL!"

Typed, without irony, on a device which does not occur in nature.

That's the irony?!
Nobody else knows what that username means?
It's not even veiled imagery! A Ronseal metaphor!

[size=1em]But on the actual topic, I did wonder when I gave blood whether this was necessary.[/size]

[size=1em]The first few posts in this thread make a case for keeping things simple but then, really, if people are dying? [/size][size=small]It's not like there is a huge surplus of donors to be that picky.[/size]

[size=small]The rational answer is because a lot of it goes straight to the royal family to drink, have water fights with or just flick at each other. Naturally, they don't want to take the risk of getting very poorly before their newest member can grow up and fulfill the end times prophecy. Also, they didn't realise until it was too late but injecting money as a cure for AIDS doesn't actually work with a fiat currency but their gold reserves are needed for more important alchemy. So, when you look at the facts, it's easier to just bar homosexuals from donating blood. [/size]

[size=small]But then, for those who are a bit conspiracy-minded, there is the idea that it is mostly sold to BUPA patients to pay for the tea and biscuits. That's a bit far-fetched for me because private business, especially big business, has always been altruistic. I mean, look at the Coca-Cola company. They felt so bad for the poor people under Hitler that they made a special drink just for them. Even today they are helping people live in the moment more every day by removing obstacles such as contracted working hours. Think about it; would Empire Day have been so popular if it was based on a near-global system of domination and exploitation? [/size]

[size=small]But to get our heads out of the clouds for a moment and back to reality; the biscuits are mandatory because the control measures are always introduced in a way that initially appears beneficial and harmless. It begins with the Tetley tea and bourbon biscuits so you don't "lose consciousness", as though you're not infinite consciousness itself . But before long it's force-feeding large quantities of magic and disco biscuits in order to permanently alter consciousness in your woozy and delirious state. Then the tea changes to PG Tips and before you know it they've got you believing that the apes on the adverts are your distant relatives. [/size]

[size=small]Now, then, when there are a lot more biscuits going around, I'm might give some credence to the BUPA conspiracy. I am aware that psychotropic biscuits do cost more and GSK don't give their patented synthetic cannabinoids away for nothing. But until then, I'm going to err on the side of caution and not say anything I can't take back. [/size]

[size=small]I may need BUPA one day.[/size]

 

[Martin]

I... I think I love you.

 

[DiogoJ42]

I think we have a strong candidate for post of the year.

 

[Johno]

The issue i have is why isn't one question...

Male or Female: In the past 12 months have you ever had unprotected sex with a non- monogamous sexual partner.

I think the issue people have is that you can have as much unprotected heterosexual sex as you like and that's fine.

If your Heterosexual and think you not going to catch something having unprotected sex then you are deluded.

I think it boils down to statistics and interestingly biology. Just for some context, I'm a medical student...

So, your chance of contracting AIDs jumps hugely if you're MSM (male having sex with a man) compared to heterosexual, both due to the statistics (ie. proportionally more homosexuals have HIV than the general population) and biologically as HIV transfer occurs more readily in MSM.

So whilst your question addresses one part of the statistics, I'd suggest the question is still very open ended, and probably hits a much wider and therefore less relevant number of individuals (ie. more individuals are screened out, but similarly more who don't have HIV and thus could give blood).

I heavily sympathise with the gay community, I can't imagine how unreasonable I'd find it being asked about my sex life in detail; and even baulk a bit when I'm asked the questions we're discussing!

However that is taking a very focused view on a single health issue, syphillis another blood born STI is on the rise, especially in heterosexual sex. There are also a variety of other retro-virus's transmitted via sex that normally are benign but can cause encephalitis in people, especially those with a weakened immune system. And then we have hepatitis, also transmitted sexually (especially Hep B) and this doesn't have the same homosexual transmission trends as HIV.

Seen as blood transfusions often are given to immunocompromised patients even potentially curable diseases are a threat to the recipient. I get the feeling the ban on homosexuals is to a point lip-service to say they are screening at risk groups when they know they can't do the same for the heterosexual majority as there will be no damn blood left.

HIV is not the only virus in the world, also every test available accurately detects HIV after 6 months (most diagnosis are made within 3 months). The rules as they stand ate based on detection technology from over 10 years ago.

I'm not ashamed to say HIV is a gay problem, it's just not the only one.

Unfortunately it's a very focused issue due to how hard it is to treat and the repercussions for the individual involved. Syphillis 'can' be treated. Hepatitis granted is on the rise, but questions on the blood questionnaire target this too.

The person who asked about Africa (due to HIV being rife there) note, the questionnaire does ask about travel, if you've travelled to certain areas of Africa in the past year you are prevented from giving blood for at least a year, similarly to parts of Asia where other blood bourn infections are common - malaria, hepatitis and encephalitis etc.

My issue is the statistics are interpreted incorrectly. Yes, HIV occurrences is more concentrated on the gay male population, but it does not directly mean that the majority of male gay population carry HIV. Same as all bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs

Apologies but you're therefore also misinterpreting the statistics.

HIV is more concentrated in the gay male population. Proportionally therefore it is much more likely that you have HIV if you are a gay male. It is of even higher likelihood that you have HIV if you are gay and are a MSM. This is shown by the recent rewording of the question, to something that is 'more' rational'.

The highest risk group for STI's are those that practice un-safe sex.

If you take HIV out of the equation (which is only one of a number of STI's) then there is statistically no difference between Straight and Gay communities that don't play safe. And as said the testing window for HIV is a lot shorter than 12 months these days.

It just seems that they are losing out on donors for little to no risk benefit, i don;t think they are homophobic, i just think they have a double standard and that filtering out "at risk" heterosexual groups would eat into their donations too much so they take the risk.

Hope I've managed to correctly explain why HIV is of such importance, especially due to blood transfusions mainly being given to immunocompromised patients. Similarly, there is a difference between the likelyhood of getting HIV between MSM and heterosexual sex. Changes in transmission also occur due to circumcision, heterosexual anal sex and oral sex.

I really do hope people don't believe medical professionals are homophobic. I agree it should be a continuing debate. Maybe we should be exploring whether patients are in monogamous relationships, I'd suggest there still stands a risk of other members of the relationship having unprotected sex. It is not the fact that HIV is hard to detect using a test (though it's not quite 'simple' (yet) but more so that many individuals (especially in the Western world) are able to live with HIV for a long time before any form of symptoms occur and progression has happened rapidly.

Now that's a rather long post, but it's an interesting topic. Hope my post is useful to some of you and a quick note that I hope none of it is taken offensively etc.

 

[Dave]

For context i am a post-graduate professional allied to medicine.

So, your chance of contracting AIDs jumps hugely if you're MSM (male having sex with a man) compared to heterosexual, both due to the statistics (ie. proportionally more homosexuals have HIV than the general population) and biologically as HIV transfer occurs more readily in MSM.

See this is where the whole HIV susceptibility argument goes a bit "un-scientific".

Being a gay man does not biologically speaking make you any more prone to HIV than being a heterosexual person. HIV (and all virus's for that matter) is nothing more than DNA/RNA that don't really give a monkeys what sexual orientation you have.

What puts you at a higher risk of contracting HIV is engaging in sexual acts that exposure a bodily fluid with a high viral load to mucosal lining/ break in the skin. Anal intercourse is a very high risk activity and one that holds the same risk whether its a man-man or man-woman undertaking that activity. Statistics certainly suggests that it's more common in gay men but not exclusive to them.

It is not the fact that HIV is hard to detect using a test (though it's not quite 'simple' (yet) but more so that many individuals (especially in the Western world) are able to live with HIV for a long time before any form of symptoms occur and progression has happened rapidly.

HIV tests are done on all blood donated regardless, so the "difficulty" in using them is relatively minor. 4th generation assays have a very high sensitivity to early infection (before and during sero-conversion) and certainly are well beyond tolerable sensitivity after 6 weeks. The idea someone should stay abstinent for a whole year before donating is not only insulting but scientifically un-justifiable. Someone clearly just decided to stick a pin in the calendar to come up with that figure.

The fact is no-one expects the service to ignore science, unfortunately the science suggests that the service is being over-cautious in its advice. Is that homophobic? i doubt thats the intention but the hysteria over HIV infection still seems to lead to silly decisions that can't be backed up with evidence.

But that's fine, the needles they use for taking blood are huge anyway, saves me going through the pain

 

[Johno]

For context i am a post-graduate professional allied to medicine.

So, your chance of contracting AIDs jumps hugely if you're MSM (male having sex with a man) compared to heterosexual, both due to the statistics (ie. proportionally more homosexuals have HIV than the general population) and biologically as HIV transfer occurs more readily in MSM.

See this is where the whole HIV susceptibility argument goes a bit "un-scientific".

Being a gay man does not biologically speaking make you any more prone to HIV than being a heterosexual person. HIV (and all virus's for that matter) is nothing more than DNA/RNA that don't really give a monkeys what sexual orientation you have.

What puts you at a higher risk of contracting HIV is engaging in sexual acts that exposure a bodily fluid with a high viral load to mucosal lining/ break in the skin. Anal intercourse is a very high risk activity and one that holds the same risk whether its a man-man or man-woman undertaking that activity. Statistics certainly suggests that it's more common in gay men but not exclusive to them.

It is not the fact that HIV is hard to detect using a test (though it's not quite 'simple' (yet) but more so that many individuals (especially in the Western world) are able to live with HIV for a long time before any form of symptoms occur and progression has happened rapidly.

HIV tests are done on all blood donated regardless, so the "difficulty" in using them is relatively minor. 4th generation assays have a very high sensitivity to early infection (before and during sero-conversion) and certainly are well beyond tolerable sensitivity after 6 weeks. The idea someone should stay abstinent for a whole year before donating is not only insulting but scientifically un-justifiable. Someone clearly just decided to stick a pin in the calendar to come up with that figure.

The fact is no-one expects the service to ignore science, unfortunately the science suggests that the service is being over-cautious in its advice. Is that homophobic? i doubt thats the intention but the hysteria over HIV infection still seems to lead to silly decisions that can't be backed up with evidence.

But that's fine, the needles they use for taking blood are huge anyway, saves me going through the pain

But proportionally you have to agree that anal sex is much increased in gay couples compared to heterosexual couples and the guidance only takes account of this, not the individuals sexuality.

Assays are getting better all the time, but false-negatives still occur. The reduction of risk before the analysis is therefore important.

 

[Dave]

But shouldn't the guidance be based on the biology, if you want to reduce risk in blood donation ask individual's if they have ever partaken in risk behaviour. If so exclude them from donating.

Unfortunately the policy seems to hide behind statistics do remove a group of donors but not actually protect patients from the risks of those outside that demographic. HIV is very much a problem for the gay community but its not exclusive and I would want a policy that truly protected the recipient without limiting potential donors.

Let the science justify the policy, not some broad stroke exclusion based on statistics...

 

[Johno]

But shouldn't the guidance be based on the biology, if you want to reduce risk in blood donation ask individual's if they have ever partaken in risk behaviour. If so exclude them from donating.

Unfortunately the policy seems to hide behind statistics do remove a group of donors but not actually protect patients from the risks of those outside that demographic. HIV is very much a problem for the gay community but its not exclusive and I would want a policy that truly protected the recipient without limiting potential donors.

Let the science justify the policy, not some broad stroke exclusion based on statistics...

Thing is, I wouldn't be adversely against a 'Have you had anal sex with a partner within the previous 12 months' question.

The issue is that science then links to how easy and appropriate the questionnaire is to fill in. I'd hazard a quess that being asked if you're gay is less embarrassing than about your sex life, but I don't know as I'm not in that position - this would be reason against the recent change.

I think what actually needs to happen is for the government and NHS to set out, clearly, why each of the questions exists. Back it up with studies and stats and facts and opinions and what not; and then let people clearly identify faults and errors with their reasoning.

Transparency really is the best policy with things like that. I hope most reading this thread and viewing the forum don't believe there is some in-built homophobia in the NHS and science in general, this topic's title is questionable and evidently there to prompt debate but in reality is a false and in my opinion deeply offensive opinion towards individuals who I believe have tried to make the best possible choice to safeguard and protect all UK residents who use the NHS and may require a blood transfusion.