Jump to content
Unofficial Mills

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

Posted

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.

Posted

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.

Posted

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.

Posted

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

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

    • Tara Kumar is in for Alyx on Sunday 13th July.
    • Conor Knight & Lauren Layfield are in for Matt & Mollie on Monday 14th July.  Matt is solo on Tuesday 15th July.  Jerry is in for Mollie between Wednesday 16th & Thursday 24th July.  Maia Beth is covering Future Pop on Wednesday 16th & Wednesday 23rd July. On Sunday 27th July the Chillest Show is reduced to an hour, and 20.00-21.00 is a BBC Proms special with JADE. On Thursday 31st July 18.00-20.00 in place of Jack's show it's the Dance Party Warm-Up with Danny Howard (ahead of the Ibiza weekend).
    • Dean McCullough in for Greg w/c 4th August. James Cusack on EB.
    • Well looks like Mollie is off all month now so presumably a personal matter. 
    • Intrigued why Matt & Mollie aren't presenting breakfast on Monday, with James in for them instead (which has happened before).. or even James given a chance to present the breakfast show?
    • Sam & Danni seem to be down for Breakfast on Monday. James Cusack on Going Home. That’s another new name in the list of “people who have hosted Going Home in 2025”.
    • Wednesday, surely? But this is another mess, as this weeks Summer press release said it’ll be Sam & Danni no Jamie from the 28th - so it’s actually a whole week earlier!
    • Jamie Laing’s last show before his summer break will be on Wednesday 16th July.
    • I worked out once Scott spent 3 months of a year off his own slot in the Moyles days and more like 4 in Grimmys days, six weeks of his own holiday and projects, six covering Grimmy plus some ad hoc days 
    • Back on topic, I think there's quite a few of the current Radio 1 presenters who would be able to adapt to Radio 2's style in the future. It's more of question of how many of them will actually end up there. With much of R2's line up changed over the past couple of years, it's quite possible we won't see much movement there, and R2 management might even decide to look elsewhere to bring in new presenters in future.
    • With OJ covering on bank holidays. She is the best person for the job however... they're going to end up with a situation like Scott covering R1 breakfast back in the day, where she spends quite a bit of time off her own slot covering Breakfast, plus her own holiday and other commitments. She's been filming for something recently which has meant she's been off several days a week since May. She was off last week, on breakfast this week, OJ is on Mon/Tues next week, then She's off the following two weeks.
    • Looking back at this I would say now that Sara is the main cover - I think she has been reestablished as it now 
    • Purley on the R1 Dance station.. Someone on DS said don't expect to see any changes to the schedule on the new stations however if they are taking on Capital Dance with this, which they clearly are, which has live presenters 7am - 10pm except for the 11am mix then they'll surely have to have a proper scheduled set of shows. At the moment Arielle is the only "live" per say show and only "live" a few days a week with earlier shows being repeated Thursday Friday and Saturday. Connor and Charlie are clearly pre records but was this only for the time it was online only and they have already got a schedule ready to go on day 1? also of note is that Charlie is taking over a podcast as well as starting a new project with podcasting which makes me wonder if she is about to step back from Dance Anthems all together to concentrate on those and Connor takes over? So you could have Arielle doing 9-12 weekdays live then someone else 12-3 and Connor live 3-6 on R1D and doing Dance Anthems on a Saturday. 
    • As none of the Going Home Team aren't currently on the air, that's a bit if an issue. Considering most of the Dance DJs will be out there, I'm surprised none of them are being utilised to host the 1-4 slot that weekend.
    • Going Home presenters have done the last few years ?
×
×
  • Create New...