Jump to content
Unofficial Mills

should men who have sex with men be banned from Blood Donation?


Nik B.

Should the NBS Ban Gay men from blood donation?  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the NBS Ban Gay men from blood donation?

    • Yes
      0
    • No
      11
    • Unsure
      2


Recommended Posts

this is old news I know.

Exclusion of Men who have Sex with Men from Blood Donation

The National Blood Service (part of NHS Blood and Transplant) has a duty to ensure a sufficient supply of safe blood for patients in England and North Wales. This includes a clear responsibility to minimise the risk of a blood transfusion transmitting an infection to patients.

Whilst our stringent testing procedures make such transmissions extremely rare, we believe that any transmission is one too many. However, it is also important that the policies which are in place to help protect the safety of the blood supply are based on the best available scientific evidence, reviewed on a regular basis, and explained clearly to the public.

Currently the policy is to ask those in groups shown to have a particularly high risk of carrying blood-borne viruses not to give blood. This includes men who have ever had sex with men, with this exclusion resting on specific sexual behaviour (such as oral or anal sex between men) rather than sexuality. There is, therefore, no exclusion of gay men who have never had sex with a man, nor of women who have sex with women.

The reasons for the current policy of permanently excluding men who have ever had sex with men from blood donation are as follows:

Blood safety starts with the selection of donors before they give blood. By excluding groups known to present a particularly high risk of blood-borne viruses, we are already reducing the risk of infected blood entering the blood supply.

Every blood donation is tested for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), syphilis and human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV). However, despite improvements in blood screening tests, a small number of infected donations may be missed because of the 'window period' between getting the infection and the test showing a positive result.

While safer sex, through the use of condoms, does reduce the transmission of infections, it cannot eliminate the risk altogether. Men who have sex with men continue to be disproportionately affected by HIV and account for 63% of HIV diagnoses where the infection was likely to have been acquired in the UK.1 Epidemiological evidence in the UK also shows that there has been a significant increase in sexually-transmitted infections which can also be blood-borne, such as hepatitis B and syphilis, among men who have sex with men. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, there was a 117% increase in syphilis infections in men who have sex with men.2

Research shows that completely removing the current exclusion on blood donation from men who have sex with men would result in a fivefold increase in the risk of HIV-infected blood entering the blood supply. While changing deferral to one year from the last sexual contact would have a lesser effect, it would still increase this risk by 60%.3

The criteria across all of the UK Blood Services for accepting blood donors on the basis of virus risk are regularly reviewed.4 SaBTO are currently reviewing the evidence base for donor deferral and exclusion in the UK in relation to sexual behaviours. As part of this review, new research was presented in July 2009 and a public meeting was held in October 2009. The research which has been examined so far includes:

Monitoring the frequency of infections which the National Blood Service finds when it tests blood donations and collecting information about how the donors probably became infected. This information is updated and reported on the Health Protection Agency (HPA) website every six months.

Using data collected by the UK Blood Services and HPA to estimate the risk of blood infected with HIV being given to patients, and looking at the likely effect of different exclusion criteria on this risk.

Trying to determine which groups in the population are most likely to have sexually-transmitted infections that might harm blood recipients.

In summer 2010 a final piece of research is due to be presented:

Studies of the sexual behaviour of people who give blood, how well people (especially men who have sex with men) comply with the current rules about who should not give blood, and what people think about these rules.

Once the review is complete, SaBTO will make recommendations to the Government as to whether any changes to the current policy are warranted. These recommendations will be based on the best and most up-to-date scientific evidence available.

NHSBT welcomes the review of donor selection criteria by SaBTO, which seeks to maintain current high standards of blood safety whilst ensuring the rules are clear, appropriate, and based on recent evidence.

Terrence Higgins Trust (THT) also supports the review, and has asked people to abide by the current regulations until any further decision is made on the basis of evidence:

So, is this just? Is it something that has a solid basis in fact? or is it just purely descrimination, a wolf in sheeps clothing. I won't comment at this time because I want this to be an impartial vote. But just remember that it's been very cleverly worded; rather than saying gay men it says men who have had sex with men. I will also say this is a life ban, and also listed on their exclusion page as people who "may never donate".

Nik B.

Born to Toads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unsure, I'm not a doctor so difficult to say whether it's true or not, but I'd be very very surprised if it's not based on solid fact given the neccessity of people giving blood. Giving blood is not a privilige it's someting that someone does because it's a good thing to do, so I don't see why they'd ban gay people from giving blood for any other reason other than it's not safe. I think the wording is such because you can be gay but not have had sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As my ex so loves pointing out, that's homoromantic. I should of mentioned really that in all the research I did earlier, I found little recent evidence to suggest the nsbs claims. But I'll moan about that another time. Also, saying that it increases the risk so substanially, even when safe sex has been practiced, is slightly strange. Also, it doesn't descriminate those who have been infected, it's a blanket ban. Finally, the wording is extremely clever. To the point of contradiction almost.

Nik B.

Born to Toads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had to say no on this one. Ok yes HIV / Aids is more commonly assosciated with the gay community but straight/bisexual people who have unprotected sex stand a risk of contracting it if the other person has it.

Men, or even women, who use prostitues and don't use protection are also at a high risk of getting it purely because a prostute would have sex with many many differnt people and could be a very likely breeding ground for various STIs

Sexuality shouldn't come into it

Not impressed with censorship

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Posts

    • Radio 1 at Parklife will be presented by Vicky and Nat. Nat is currently listed to present her usual Sunday show on that weekend but I imagine that will change and someone else will be doing it instead. The Radio 1 presenters at Download will be Daniel P Carter, Jack Saunders, Alyx Holcombe and Nels Hylton.
    • Nat in for Dean with Vicky as well that day.
    • So the end of weekend afternoons this week - new show is July 1st.
    • Arielle is in for Greg on Monday 27th May.
    • He’s definitely gotten better and the show has sounded fine this week. I think it been at its best when it’s been Katie and Jamie or Vick and Katie. Vick and Jamie are ok together, but I do think the show sounds better when it’s Vick and Katie and therefore I still don’t really understand the point of the trio.    Jamie is, however, a lot better than Danny Beard! 
    • The RAJAR coming on later this year reflecting later summer to autumn will be interesting to how it reflects Matt and Mollie in afternoons to the revised changes on radio 1’s new music slots and the schedule re-shuffling Radio 3 introducing a new slate of programmes. Then, later on this year have speech radio stations having domestic political coverage of the election but also America’s presidential election.  
    • I actually caught snippets of today’s show, and I found it much better than the last time I listened. I have made it no secret that I like Jamie on the radio, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Matt & him together last year. People have criticised him for not being relatable, but I have to agree with the comment above that I have always found him a naturally warm person to listen to. Maybe the going home set up was something that needed settling in and things are starting to take shape.  It must have been difficult for him joining an established duo in Vick & Katie to begin with.  Jamie was great on something songs today, fully engaged in the caller and sounded like a real presenter. Maybe he is doing as a lot of us hoped and really learning as he goes, how to do it properly. 
    • Agree with this. The anti-Jamie feeling was IMO quite influenced by the negativity around him replacing Jordan, since Jordan was exceptional and also universally loved. When people mention Danny and Jamie in the same sentence about bad hiring decisions I almost choke - Jamie may not be perfect but he's several leagues better than Danny already and has bags of potential. Danny is poor and has shown zero potential...
    • Jamie started 4 March, and the figures only going up to 31 March, so it isn't reliable. But it has shown the numbers have dropped in afternoons compared to last quarter. It looks like it's Capital's gain.
    • Do these audience figures reflect Jordan leaving and Jamie replacing him?
    • I think Jamie is really starting to settle into the role well. He comes across as really warm, and genuinely invested in the listeners when he’s talking to them which is nice. I think he’s building a really great relationship with Vicki and Katie too. His recent great company podcast is great too, where he has quite a deep chat with someone new each week. He’s clearly a very genuine person and I think he has some real potential.
    • Most probably. But do wonder what the future of the relax themed programmes will be when they officially wind down that service.
    • I think it's just to replace Wind Down presents... which was in that timeslot, and I'm guessing Chillout Anthems was just a buffer since it'll still be played at 06:00 on Sundays.
    • With listening on the U.K. for the industry in general it is good overall as most stations reach is on the up and shows radio to be more sustainable and stable outlet than linear televisions channels. This RAJAR I think with the increase shift to DAB+ the BBC will be able to say it has it’s audiences for the proposed new stations it wishes to launch and think the new innovative ideas that it seems Jack himself can take credit for on the new music show think the younger under 30 gen z demographic could increase se in that time-slot. 
    • Conor Knight is in for Sam & Danni on Saturday 8th & Sunday 9th June. It's Radio 1 at Parklife, 13.00-16.00 on Saturday 8th & Sunday 9th June. Matt & Mollie are in for Greg from Monday 10th to Friday 14th June - it's just Matt on the Thursday. It's Radio 1 at Download, 13.00-16.00 on Friday 14th June.
×
×
  • Create New...