can we start some type of campaign against this? this, for me, is one of the most prevalent examples of discrimination in society today and it should not be tolerated. To say that gay man have a greater risk of carrying blood-borne viruses doesn't really seem like a good enough reason for me. There is a high chance that anybody with a piercing or a tattoo has the chance of having Hep B! (and they give them a 6 month restriction period if you have had, not like gay males who get nothing!)
The question they ask is:
Are you a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man (even if you used a condom)?
ARE THEY JOKING ME?! seriously. what about straight couples? what about women who take it up the ass? I'm sorry, but this is an issue that really grates me because it's so pathetic! It's like 'gayness' can be transferred via blood. ARGH!
we had a debate on it and the majority actually voted for the ban, because statistically men who have sex with men are more likely to have hiv, and therefore their blood is more likely to be bad.
And the overall consensus is that avoiding hiv infection of the patient is more important than maintaining the rights which were almost referred to as academic softy protests from a position of privilege.
I however side with you. They filter all the blood and test it... even if the higher statistic were to be carried through to men who have sex with other men AND give blood, it would be tested and found out. The blood service representatives stated that there had only been a negligible (1 or 2) instances when it had gone wrong, and that's over the entire history of the current system. What it does is potentially save money, because theoretically they may have to pay to test blood they can not use.
The right to reject is definitely more important than the right to give. But I argued that it would only take a couple adjustments to make the system a whole lot better. Of the men who have HIV a very large proportion are going to know about it, it's kinda bad, especially if untreated... therefore how probable is it that people with hiv are a whole less likely to even TRY and give blood. And if anyone knowingly is malicious enough to want to donate infected blood, then the blood ban won't effect them, because they can just lie.
The blood ban could even have clauses to ask if people had used condoms, gay or straight... had regular sti screenings if sexually active... and in that way actually be doing something good for both their patients and the people giving blood by encouraging good sexual practice, helping to FIGHT the hiv they're so scared of losing money by, rather than alienate the gay male community. I don't know of many things that can lead to as many insecurities as alienation, and that's going to be at least one stumping block in the way of people seeking help for sexual health for one.
If it were the other way round, and men who shag men had lower rates of the disease, would the blood service turn away "men who have sex with women"? No, because they are not a minority. And cutting corners, is something you can only do with minorities.
On the other hand, the service is just after blood, if they only want blood from certain people, because that makes their job easier, and if those people are willing to come forward and give it, who's to stop them... should they have any other responsibility?
Their opinion of the blood banks is that blood from a gay person may have more infections than blood from a straight person. Therefore, they say, the costs of screening gay blood are too high.
However - surely the costs will be cheaper than running a national advertising campaign? And why are the costs of screening a straight persons blood acceptable when sexually transmitted diseases amongst hetrosexuals rise every year?
A man can shag around loads of women (unprotected) and still give blood. A man who has slept with a guy ONCE, WITH protection, cannot.
I understand the logic of gay men are more likely to have HIV. But I don't believe in homogenising 'gays' - we are not all the same much like straight people aren't.
I do not see how anybody can support this ban. It is completely illogical to me.
The majority of people actually diagnosed with HIV in the UK in 2006 (61%) had been infected through heterosexual sex. Most of these infections were acquired abroad and many were in individuals of African origin.
we need to inform the blood banks of this quick! they must stop people that aren't virgins giving blood!
I'd be interested to know if people from sub-Saharan Africa, or who have spent some time there, can give blood? does anyone know? cos if they are, then its definitely homophobic because there are some areas in which there's a 50% HIV rate or something...
nicely argued CrowJake!
I think there's also a neglected campaign opportunity here for people who have ever sold sex or injected drugs...particularly as female sex workers generally are strict condom users and STI rates in the London sex worker population are going down in comparison to the general female population which is sharply on the rise! Also why shouldn't you be able to give if you've only injected once, several years ago and have multiple negative HIV tests to prove it...
The spectre of dirty minority stereotypes is unfortunately lurking...and its quite dangerous because its subtle and not like, full blown bigotry because its claiming to be pure risk assessment...which can hardly be true given its a BLANKET ban rather than selection on individual circumstances...
Giving blood is not an unqualified right, but it seems a shame to refuse on unjustifiable grounds especially when its such a precious resource! Just a simple re-classification with more detailed questions about sexual activities regardless of actual sexual IDENTITY would solve the whole thing and it can't be too expensive, so though I'm reluctant to label the blood service as homophobic I really don't see why they haven't updated it already!
I can't help thinking that the Blood-ban is a non-issue. It may or may not be discriminatory, it has little to no impact on our daily lives. In my opinion it has consumed far too much campaign time and thought.
Only today I read in the Guardian that in a Stonewall review 65% of young gay people report being bullied in school (http://education.guardian.co.uk/pupilbehaviour/story/0,,2264120,00.html). In a shocking number of countries around the world being gay is not even an option if you want to avoid persecution and violence.
The blood-ban pales into insignificance in comparison. It is not a right to give blood; it is a right to be LGBT without having to face violence and persecution. I think our attention and time should be focused on the real battles for those who can't fight them themselves.
"It may or may not be discriminatory" And if it were, why is it so irrelevant?... surely any form of discrimination, especially an institutionalized one such as this deserves to be countered... I mean it may be one foot soldier down, in a world of massacre... but i don't think saving that little life is going to mean you can't fight the bigger battles... like the enormous task of reversing the massive bullying problem suffered by lgbt youth.
It's also a bit unfair that calling it a "non-issue" sounds neutral but only quashes protest and not the enforcement, who actually benefit! Obviously, for the number of people who speak up against the ban, they DO feed discriminated against; enough to speak out, and for them it isn't a non issue... a small issue, in your opinion, perhaps... but that does not mean it's ok, nor does it mean you have to tell anyone else it's irrelevant, nor does it retract from the big issues, which can still be fought. In many ways this could even be a stepping stone... if institutions like the blood service could admit they are wrong... can not the individual people start doing the same?
my only objection is that they link us to protitutes and drug addicts i wouldnt mind so much if they re wrote the form so that we were not being associated quite so negativley.
i would argue that black men are also more at ricks from HIV and syphillis but they dont get a tick box do they.
also in this modern age of free sex rather than free love isnt the concept that one group is free from the risk of hiv a little deluided gay men are more likely to get tested that straight women or at least that was what we used to find at the gum.
