Be Excellent To Each Other

I just switched on to beeb2, and caught a peice on newsnight about campaigning to allow gay men to give blood. As the law (I don't know if it's a law or just a policy) stands, if a man has ever had sex (oral or anal) with another man, they can no longer give blood. Celebite gay men, and gay women are fine apparently.

So, thoughts?

Malc

I think that is something to do with the relative risk of various blood bourne diseases compared to heterosexual intercourse events.

So a man that had sex with another man, once, 20 years ago is a higher risk than a man who had sex with a load of female prostitutes 2-3 years ago? (I believe that you only have to wait a year after having intercourse with a whore before giving blood)

Malc

It seems very lobsided. Aren't all donations screened?

Eh? Some wimmins like it up the bum & give gubbies too.

Something like that, yes.

Screening costs money.

Man A fucks Man B, then fucks Woman C,

Woman C can give blood after a year, Man A and Man B can never give blood.

That just seems wrong.

Malc

Yeah, seems fucking crazy to me, and I'd rather have a gay person's blood than die from not being able to get a blood transfusion.

Edit: and I remember being really shocked when I found out that was the case.

No, it's playing with probabilities.


There was, and has been, major problems with contaminated blood over a generation or so. Best not take the risk, from the numbers point of view to my mind.

Surely the blood is tested somewhere along the line?

Only for about three main things I believe. AIDS, hepatitis and something...?

If Woman C is safe after a year, why is not Man B?

I really don't see the difference.

Malc

Yes, it is, but there does exist economies of scale here, in their thinking, I'm sure. It probably doesn't happen in Germany.

"Something" is a pretty catch-all test, chap.

It's also the one with the highest error rate, due to ....something...!

Surely this works the same as vehicle insurance to a certain extent, with the higher risks in proportion to the probabilities involved.

The problem with gay blood of course is that if any 'gay' gets inside you, you can turn all gay.

Urgh....

Pretty much, yeah. Screening for stuff costs an awful lot, especially as STDs tend to become more awesome at what they do in a shorter space of time.

Cooties.

They could be testing for gay?

So much to potentially screen for too, come to think of it. I remember volunteering to give blood back when I was doing my A-levels (a mobile clinic visited the college), and was turned away for being on various medications. I recall asking "which medications" and being told "any", so, yeah, too much potential for bad stuff to get into the supplies unless there's donation restrictions.

Presumably condoms have become better since these rules were introduced anyway, so the risks and probabilities will have changed, so there's wriggle room for an investigation into changing the rules, if not even changing them to fit in with more modern and correct thinking.

The thinking behind the ideas that lead to these rules really annoys me actually. "Urgh, you've put your willy in a man's bum. POISONED. FOREVER"

Yeah, but, "wriggle room" is a bit of a problem. What if promiscuous heterosexual behaviour presents fewer cases of X than promiscuous homosexual behaviour.

I'd still be weighting my bets.

I mean we shouldn't say 'no, this rule should stay forever', we should have the wriggle room to say 'fair enough, let's see if the rules need changing.'

I think it's something to do with gay blood turning you gay, but I'd have to dig out the relevant studies.

It's cheaper to just rule out significant risk factors.

I don't see particularly much wrong with that.

Now see, this is what Cavey was complaining about.

Not me though.

As far as the issue goes, it seems to be a holdover from when AIDS and HIV were running rampant. As Dave says, it's easier to rule out a whole at-risk group when you're desperate for stock and can't screen every drop. I was banned from giving blood for a year (Sub please check) after visiting the Pacific coast of Mexico, for example. I believe everyone is screened at regular intervals, but not every time they give. Is that right?

The controversy comes from it being a traditionally maligned group that's being excluded. Aren't drug users banned too? Don't here them complaining.

Another factor, which relates to people of all sexualities, is the fear that people would use blood donation as an alternative to going to the GUM for screening.

Good point, never thought of that.

It's part of the literature when you go in that they say it shouldn't be used as a substitute for going and getting proper testing yourself.

I've started a thread in the past about giving blood. You should do it at least once in your life. The finger pricky bit doesn't hurt any more. It used to be pretty brutal.

I've got my 20 pint badge, but haven't been for years. Really should get back on that.

I'm up to about 5 or 6 pints over roughly the same amount of years. It's slow but you know, it's potentially saved up to six lives. Real people's lives.

I am TERRIFIED of giving blood. My heart races so much I pump that pint out in under 5 minutes rather than 20.

I was a squirter the first few times. Finish giving, sit and have your cuppa and BAM! Exorcist levels of blood shoot out of my arm.

Much better now though.

I think I ought to give blood but even the thought of it makes me feel a bit

It's really not that bad. Also, stab in the dark, but do you have a fetish for kindly middle age women in tabards?

Not that I'm aware of.

Damn, that would've helped.

The thing is I'm fine with blood and needles right up until it's my blood or the needles are being stuck in me.

I'm on eight or nine at the moment, and at ten I think you get a badge or a certificate or something, so I can't stop now! The nurse at the last one said I had the "best veins she'd seen all day", which is good, I guess.

In my book, if the decisions on who can donate are made on purely medical grounds, then that's fine. As soon as it gets to "bumsex = Ewwww" then that's wrong. Do we have any doctors here who now about blood born diseases? If not, we really should get one.

I'm going to hazard a guess that it's down to evidence based pragmatism rather than some sort of institutional homophobia.

Me too. If you tell the nurse that she'll actually sit with you rather than leaving to tend to other matters. I ask them to get the needle yanked out at the very instant the bag is full and they're happy to oblige.

Pretty shameful really. Now I know there are prizes I might reconsider.

I feel doubly pathetic because after MrsG was diagnosed with MS not being able to give blood any more was something that quite upset her so I promised that I would go in her stead and I still haven't. It shall be my summer resolution.

Sometimes they have pretty nurses AND they give you free biscuits and squash afterwards. Do it, it's great!

What sort of biscuits?

All sorts, man! Fruity shortbread, ginger nuts, digestives, rich tea - the last place I went to had bags of crisps as well. It's everything you've dreamt of and more!

Bourbon biscuits, kitkats, Twixes, Club biscuits. No limit on scoffings!

My advice is to go after lunch. A large lunch.

Galton and Simpson were clearly onto something.

Apparently HIV and a couple of other viruses do not give positive results in blood tests until about a year or more after being contracted in some cases.

I don't feel informed enough to have formed proper views about the wider issue. On the one hand it would seems strange that gay men have to wait a proposed ten years to give blood after having sex (I think this is what the story is about - they are seeking to reduce the number of years between intercourse and blood donation) yet women do not have tom when either could carry the blood diseases, but then I am not sure how different the numbers are in rates of disease between the two groups, either and whether that justifies the difference.

Really should carry on reading the thread to see if someone has turned up some numbers...