If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Ban on GBT men giving blood
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Hello all,
An interesting topic for debate (and something I have to speak on tonight!) is the ban in the UK on GBT men giving blood. Wondered what people thought. Partly fishing for info but also generally interested.
I have essays and statistics and stuff but won't go for info overload just yet.
An interesting topic for debate (and something I have to speak on tonight!) is the ban in the UK on GBT men giving blood. Wondered what people thought. Partly fishing for info but also generally interested.
I have essays and statistics and stuff but won't go for info overload just yet.
0
Comments
As for gay men being stopped, like has been said its a bit of a throw back, though in real terms I dont know about their relative risk. I can only assume the blood is tested before use anyway isnt it?
For 12 months i think.
Risk probably. Im sure the national blood service had a reason for not wanting the blood.
And it would have been done in the name of risk probably, but perhaps also due to social climate, so maybe it needs a rethink. But HIV afaik is higher in gay males than any other sexuality group, so it's not just random prejudice.
There was someone recently who contracted some virus through a blood transfusion, so although they are screened they're not foolproof which is why they do say you have to meet lots of criteria 'just in case'.
While all blood is screened unfortunately certain bugs don't always show on the test. Taking HIV as an example, there can be enough in the blood to cause infection but not enough to show on the test, hence why they have to be so careful about the blood they take.
Men who have sex with other men are still one of the higher % carriers of HIV which is why they aren't allowed to donate.
It does rely completely on honesty, but then the whole system does. I believe the ban may also extend to people who have sex with a man who has had anal sex.
And the idea that the NBS is only banning 'high risk' donors doesn't really wash, men who have oral sex with men (with or without a condom) are banned; oral sex between two men as far as HIV is concerned is generally lower risk than vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman.
If the NBS has 'to be so careful' about the blood they take why can straight people who sleep around and have unprotected sex with multiple partners give blood?
That's true... But it's also an arbitrary rule which in practice can appear absurd. Someone who 'experimented' when they were a teenager decades ago is banned for life, but a straight person who had unprotected sex last week with someone they met in a nightclub is fine.
It does, although, I don't think it is a lifetime ban. I think it's 6 or 12 months for women who've had sex with gay/bi men.
I'm unsure about this, tbh.
They should do really.
Of course, NBS could question every single person about their sex life. Sadly that would just drive people away when the opposite is needed.
I think they need to update the tests somehow tbh rather than blanket ban groups of people whothe majority of would still be fine, or at least only have a time limit for certain groups rather than outlawing them completely.
Think this is the key point.
I know that straight people who sleep around unprotected pose a bigger threat than careful gay men. Some of the other questions on the forms do try and discourage people who fall into that category from donating.
SCC has a good point. It doesn't need to be a blanket ban, and time restricted ban would do the trick much like they now have for travel to certain countried.
I'd also like to point out that the ban really doesn't apply to GBT men, it applies to men who have at any point had anal sex - very different.
For certain groups (like self harmers) there is a ban for one year.
I think you should word that differently. I think you need counselling if you hate the entire gay community because of 'that filthy faggot' when you were 15.
The ban applies to the vast majority of gay man. It applies to ALL men who have had oral or anal sex at ANY time with another man - with or without a condom. How is that 'very different' to banning gay men?
Would banning any straight man who has had sex with a woman not be equivalent to banning straight men?
(Yes, lifelong celibate gay men can still give blood - pretty obvious... even Catholics have no objections to lifelong celibate gay men).
It would make no difference if you were tested or not, thats the point.
I know i dont have HIV, hepatitis or anything like that. Ive been tested but because I used to be an IV drug user many years ago, the fact that im clean now and disease free, they still dont want my blood, but someone who went out and fucked a different man every night, as long as it was vaginal sex with a man that had never had sex with another man or used IV drugs or been to africa....
If theyre so unsure that the tests they do on the blood work, then why isnt there more instances of people catching stuff from blood transfusions and why cant they research making the tests better?
Wait what?!
Does that mean I can't give blood?
its only certain parts of africa i think. Im not sure if you have to have had sex when yu were there or not
J. They dont want your blood. Why lie? What will you get out of lying about it?
I'm very much torn.
A blanket ban isn't fair, but at the same time I fully understand why they do it, and to be quite honest I don't think the National Blood Service should take the risk just because it is politically correct to do so.
Those who have used IV drugs, men who have had sex with each other (and this extends to oral sex, not just anal), and those who have been sexually active in places like Africa, or with men who have had sex with men, are more of a risk. The risk is undisputable.
And whilst I appreciate it is a small risk, there is a risk, and I don't think it is a risk that is necessary to take. The only reason why the restrictions should be eased is if we need the blood, and there is no blood shortage at present. I don't think the NBS should start playing with people's lives for political reasons.
Not so very many years ago a five-year-old girl in Melbourne contracted HIV from a blood transfusion, and whilst it can never be 100% risk-free, I wouldn't want to have to be the doctor who has to tell a parent that their child has contracted HIV. Tests are not foolproof, as this tragic case proves.
We should be looking to minimise risk, and until a 100% foolproof test is invented for HIV, we should not be inviting people to give blood if their sexual past, or their lifestyle past, means that they are a more risky donor.
They're not so unsure, they are extra cautious because the people who need blood transfusions are so very very vulnerable. There's a lot of research that goes into trying to make testing blood easier, faster, more reliable and more sensitive but so far no one's developed a perfect testing system.
Personally I'd rather that they were harsh with the limits they set if it keeps the patients who need the blood safer, and I'd put their safety above any equality issue any day.
I meet and fail the requirements on a fairly frequent cycle. If I can give blood then I will, to try and help someone. If I can't, I won't and I'd rather they minimised the risks to the patients.
Going back to the issue of people who sleep around, technically most of them shouldn't give blood if they've been sleeping around in the last year because they can't give the necessary answer to the questions about the people they've had sex with (towards the bottom of Suzys link).
Perhaps, but for the biggest group who get caught up in the restrictions (sexually active homosexual/bisexual men) that's really going to be irrelevant.
If they were banning gays because they didn't like their lifestyle choice I can see its discriminatory. However they're banning sexually active gays to minimise risk
Theres nothing wrong with mine either, but I dont meet their criteria and unless i lie then theyll say im not suitable. There isnt a blood shortage at the moment so just keep your blood for yourself.
But until you've had a test to determine whether you're safe or not, how do they know this?
I dont think self-harmers are banned (although I see the logic behind it). You might get banned if you take certain drugs though, and some ADs are probably on that list.