Blood Donation | Discrimination | News | United Kingdom

BigGayDeal.com

Gay Men Can Now Give Blood in the UK...As Long As They Haven't Had Sex for 10 Years

The ban on blood donation by gay men in the UK is being lifted over concerns that it could be in violation of the Equality Act. However, there is one stipulation:

Blood However, gay men will only be permitted to donate if they have not had sexual intercourse for a decade. Homosexuals who are or have recently been sexually active will continue to be barred from giving blood.

Anne Milton, the public health minister, is expected to announce the changes within weeks and she is understood to be backed by Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, and Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities Minister.

***

The changes were instigated by Sabto, the advisory committee on the safety of blood, tissues and organs, which had concluded that if the ban were replaced by a new rule preventing gay men from giving blood for five years after having sex with another man, the risk of HIV reaching the blood supply would go up by less than 5%.

It is estimated that this figure would halve if the “deferral” period were increased to 10 years, so ministers backed this option. The 10-year delay also ensures that people who are not aware they have contracted HIV do not pass it on accidentally.

Pink News adds: "86,500 people in the UK have HIV. 42 per cent are gay men, 54 per cent are heterosexuals, the majority of whom are Africans according to the Terrance Higgins Trust A government source told the newspaper: 'A complete ban is unfair and discriminatory but we need to protect public health, so the 10-year rule is what is being considered.'"

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments


  1. Never underestimate the stupidity of health policy.

    Wasn't in the US that the head of the FDA said you could pray away menopause?

    Posted by: AllBeefPatty | Apr 10, 2011 11:27:52 AM


  2. Whatever! I'm not going to become celibate in order to donate blood. This is idiotic. With the current tests for HIV available this is just homophobic gay bashing, pure and simple. But what else is new!

    Posted by: Mike | Apr 10, 2011 11:48:12 AM


  3. 10 years of celibacy so I can donate blood? Let them die.

    Posted by: Adrian | Apr 10, 2011 11:57:05 AM


  4. It's a bad joke, isn't it?

    Posted by: Lexxvs | Apr 10, 2011 12:05:56 PM


  5. As someone who receives medically necessary blood transfusions on a regular basis (every 10 weeks), I wonder how many others posting here can say the same. This is one issue where I can't say I'm completely decided, as 1) it is a fact that HIV screening of blood products is very, very good but is *not* 100.00% and 2) it is terrifying to realize this when you receive blood products regularly.

    Posted by: Priscilla Queen of the Jungle | Apr 10, 2011 12:11:20 PM


  6. This policy must have been crafted for Morrissey.

    Posted by: Keih | Apr 10, 2011 12:31:18 PM


  7. @priscilla you are right it is not 100%, the rapid HIV test that are given are only testing for antibodies so those on medications or recently infected could slip by.

    But no test they give for any blood born disease is. TB, Hepatitis can also get by. But there risk assessment for them isn't as drastic. HIV is singled out and has the most severe assumption of risk, when it isn't only the risk.

    There are ways of of better assessing risk than currently use.

    But if you feel that is not enough then you should apply the same high standards to all possible blood born diseases that are just as dangerous.

    Posted by: kujhawker | Apr 10, 2011 12:34:08 PM


  8. @Priscilla QotJ: I understand where you are coming from, and I imagine it would be scary the tests fall a few tenths or hundredths of a percent shy of 100%, but where does the discrimination end? Black women are the fastest growing group of those infected with HIV, so do we ban them as well? Heterosexual people are infected with HIV too, and this is just a remnant of the homophobic stereotypes from the 80s. Until the tests are 100% there will always be risks with the blood, gay ban or not. I'm very sorry for your situation, but I don't think a whole population should discriminated against for this.

    Posted by: Matthew | Apr 10, 2011 12:43:35 PM


  9. I look at it this way - IF you were dying and needed..blood...and without that blood - u Die...Give me the blood, I dont care who's it is...

    Posted by: Disgusted Gay American | Apr 10, 2011 12:51:39 PM


  10. I think the issue the bloody banks have is that the concentration of HIV in the gay community is much higher, but i think a simple questionnaire to ask what sexual history you have is enough, rather than a blanket ban. 10 years of safe sex is good enough in my book.

    Posted by: Rovex | Apr 10, 2011 1:00:42 PM


  11. Bloody banks?? Appropriate, but i meant blood banks of course..

    Posted by: Rovex | Apr 10, 2011 1:01:45 PM


  12. Rovex, I don't live in the UK, but how do you figure that the concentration of HIV is higher in the gay community?

    Posted by: Zaihan Kariyani | Apr 10, 2011 1:11:55 PM


  13. How are you (or they) going to prove that? Is there a test for when you had sex the last time?

    Posted by: Steve | Apr 10, 2011 1:39:45 PM


  14. Really? Let's just put a make gay individuals stop supporting a health care system that discriminates and prefers closeted men.

    Posted by: Mark | Apr 10, 2011 2:17:17 PM


  15. Dosent UK have about as many black people as they have gay people?

    So if blacks are as likely as gays to have HIV, why don´t they stop black people from donating blood?

    (Just to be clear, I think these are bad ideas)

    Posted by: Just Somebody | Apr 10, 2011 2:21:10 PM


  16. @Just Somebody: I get the point you're trying to make, but it might be more helpful to point out that more than 50% of the HIV+ cases in the UK are heterosexual. That is the distinguishing factor that makes the health law for donating blood clearly ridiculous. My point is that using another minority group as leverage defeats the purpose of seeking equality, IMHO

    Posted by: W | Apr 10, 2011 2:59:54 PM


  17. @Just Somebody: Just to be clear. Not saying you're racist. I believe you think both discriminatory situations are bad. Just offering you a sharper weapon.


    Posted by: W | Apr 10, 2011 3:05:07 PM


  18. Eggggssssellent! While the breeders are all worried about HIV, finally we can spread our insidious gay gene out through the general blood supply and transform all the wholesome boys and girls into the freshest of fresh same-sex meat! Hahahahahahahah!

    Posted by: Tom | Apr 10, 2011 3:17:30 PM


  19. How about... "We will place a 6 month ban on all gay men who have had sex with other men outside of monogamous relationships."

    This 10 years idea is pure bullshit, especially now that rapid tests are virtually void of false negatives outside of the 3 month time window.

    Posted by: RJ | Apr 10, 2011 3:22:21 PM


  20. Kujhawker & Matthew, you both make valid points. There are a number of bloodborne infectious agents besides HIV. And I do wonder if my fear of HIV (and the wider society's fear of HIV) is a little "irrational" and out of proportion in the same way that fear of flying can be irrational.

    Risk tolerance varies from one person to the next, which makes this such a contentious issue. One person might think it's fine to get screened blood from a population with 50% HIV infection, whereas someone else would blanch at those numbers. From the policymaker's perspective, if one group has higher HIV prevalence than others, then that's probably something that should be factored into donation policy, in order to keep risk acceptably low for blood recipients...and I don't think that's a bad thing at all. Unfortunately, in this case, the policy singles out an already discriminated-against group (gays), so the motivation behind the policy understandably becomes suspect ("is this scientifically and ethically valid or is this yet another form of bigotry?"). And, hey, if black women or any other group have high prevalence rates too, then they should be treated under similar policies (risk is risk, no matter whom it's coming from).

    Anyway, no easy answers. It's about hard epidemiological data and societal attitudes towards acceptable risk. With "risk" meaning that someone, somewhere is being infected through blood products, even with today's advanced screening methods. This is stark stuff. And thanks for the sympathy...I know the transfusion stuff must have sounded extreme to those unfamiliar with the territory...but I'm blessed with a great team of clinicians, overall my health is actually quite good and I consider myself very lucky in life. :-)

    Posted by: Priscilla Queen of the Jungle | Apr 10, 2011 4:06:54 PM


  21. I used to carry an organ donor card, but I tore it up years ago. If they don't want my blood while I'm alive, they're not having my organs when I die.

    Posted by: Justin | Apr 10, 2011 4:36:30 PM


  22. Hey, anyone could need your organ--even your cousin or niece/nephew :-(. That's awful....

    Posted by: redball | Apr 10, 2011 4:41:17 PM


  23. Are you sure it's not 10 years of not having unprotected sex? This is not a compromise, it's just plain ridiculous.

    If you haven't had sex in 10 years, you are not a homosexual nor a heterosexual. You are technically asexual.

    Thanks but no thanks, UK. You can do better.

    Posted by: gayalltheway | Apr 10, 2011 7:03:23 PM


  24. @GAYALLTHEWAY

    lol no. not having sex for 10 years does not "technically" make you an asexual.

    Posted by: larson | Apr 11, 2011 12:45:12 AM


  25. Oh, right, I forgot that the gay was a blood-borne pathogen!

    Posted by: cello | Apr 11, 2011 1:51:38 AM


Post a comment









« «Watch: Cat and Dolphins are BFFs« «