Gay men will soon be able to donate blood after the Government moved to lift donor restrictions across the UK. A lifetime ban was put in place in the UK in the 1980s as a response to the spread of Aids and HIV. But the Department of Health has said men who have not had homosexual sex within a year will now be able to donate as of November 7. The move comes after recommendations were made to change the restrictions following a review by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (Sabto) earlier this year. The committee had considered the risk of infection being transmitted in blood, attitudes of potential donors in complying with selection criteria and scientific improvements in the testing of donated blood. Their advice was accepted by the health ministers in England, Scotland and Wales. The National Aids Trust (NAT) has welcomed the changes. The organisation tweeted: "NAT welcomes the lifting of the lifetime blood ban for gay men and the new evidence-based approach." Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the new policy was a "big improvement on the existing discriminatory rules". But he added it fell short of lifting the ban on gay men who always used condoms. "Most gay and bisexual men do not have HIV and will never have HIV. If they always have safe sex with a condom, have only one partner and test HIV negative, their blood is safe to donate," he said. "They can and should be allowed to help save lives by becoming donors." Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service national director Keith Thompson said: "We are pleased that this new donor selection criteria has been made possible by the most up to date scientific advances in screening and testing." Public Health Minister Anne Milton said: "Blood donations are a lifeline, and many of us would not have loved ones with us today if it was not for the selfless act of others. "Appropriate checks based on robust science must be in place to maintain this safety record and the committee's recommendation reflects this. "It is important that people comply with all donor selection criteria, which are in place to protect the health of both donors and transfusion recipients." Stringent blood donor testing has meant there has been no documented transmission of a blood-born virus in the UK since 2005, with no HIV transmission since 2002.
Two Questions: 1.) Are gay men more likely to have have HIV/Aids than straight men? 2.) Does donated blood get tested?
@bulla Ohhh yeah cause having a blood transfusion from a gay man will turn you gay OOOooooohhhhhhh .... Fucking get real man ... If you still see homosexuality as wrong in this day and age then maybe you should fuck off and die And it has the same change for a straight couple to get HIV ... People in this world are just idiots
1. Back in the initial days of the disease, it HIV/AIDS was then called GRID or Gay Related Immune Deficiency. There was no way to even to identify what was killing people. As the disease was noted to spread primarily amongst homosexual men, it was thus generally but mistakenly assumed to be a disease uniquely and selectively affecting gay men only. However, the illness has long since spread to the general population through heterosexual contact and intravenous drug use. Today, one is probably just as likely to catch aids from sex with anyone. In terms of blood donation, gay men aren't any riskier than straight people not simply because they're less infected (statistically they are at lower numbers), but rather that society itself overall has become just as risky. 2, Donated blood is always tested, but there is never 100% certainty. If given the choice of either bleeding to death, or taking a transfusion (along with the risk of 0.01% of getting aids) I wouldn't hesitate to take the blood. Further, statistically speaking, the risk for contracting hepatitis (from a transfusion) is actually greater than that for contracting HIV/AIDS, and there are a lot more people with hepatitis than HIV/AIDS overall in the general population. That said, there is now a rapid HIV test that can find the most common HIV antibody and all Emergency Departments in New York City are currently mandated to offer the test to EVERY patient (you get your results in a few hours). On a personal note, I remember when this disease entity first hit. The public panic, even within the health care community, was pervasive and rampant. I lost several co-workers and friends (many of which I had no idea that they were even gay to begin with) to this disease, and I even once encountered a ninety year old church going woman, who sero-converted (became HIV+) after a transfusion. Hence, I completely understand the fear. But with the advent of protease inhibitors since the mid 90's, and relatively easy identification of the pathogen, the disease today is more of a long term chronic medical management issue than the life and death it once was. So should gay men be allowed to give blood? Sure. For me that's a non issue. (oh, and for the record, I'm NOT gay, I know some people place importance on things like that, especially for contentious political and emotionally charged issues like this). But if one is really into the question of blood safety vis a vis infectious disease, there is greater risk in the collection process as some aspects have been tainted by corruption and greed (remember the incident where thousands of poor villagers in China were infected after they sold their blood serum to donation collection agents?). IMHO, there is much greater risk from donation process mismanagement.
Calm down, I'm not saying your blood will turn me gay but I am saying i don't want it, I do have the right to not want it? That's my choice, deal with it. My thoughts on Sodomy is not swayed by lady gaga or soaps on TV, sheesh, in ancient Greece i probably would have got hate for thinking there was something wrong with paedophilia, in that 'day and age' it was all good, today is the age of sodomy, and who knows what it will be in 20 years time, bestiality? time will tell. oh yeah, ill die in due time, you too --- --- Anywayz, if they do that imo they should separate it and let the individual decide, if they don't mind then fine, of course, that wont happen though, it will just be together with the rest of the blood. wonder what the JW's will say now
Just to show that how the UK has moved on from the 80's where the gays were basically not welcomes. Nowadays everyone knows a least one gays in their lifetimes. Didn't think the gays were actually banned from blood donation though..
^ you mean everyone knows an (out of the closet) gay, im pretty sure people have always knows one without knowing though. I had one at my work place once, ahh there was one at my school too, but we never gave any trouble which is surprising because at my school having a shady surname was enough to get you roasted for 4 years.-lol
@bulla .. yes it is your choice but to say ... i'd rather die then have gay blood in me ... i dunno about you but that is a pretty homophobic comment if you ask me
^ can you think of a non (supposedly) homophobic way to say it? the homophobic label can not be escaped.
...Seriously? You're pretty much saying that you would refuse the blood of any individual who's personal decisions go against your beliefs. How do you know the "heterosexual" blood you're getting isn't from a pedophile or someone who's into bestiality? If they were to separate the blood, it would defeat the purpose of lifting the ban in the hopes of reducing discrimination. If everyone thought like you, we'd have a lot of people dying. Perhaps we should also separate blood from blacks and whites for the racists out there as well.
IIRC way back in the 1960's, there used to be an American comic called Sgt Rock, in which one story was about a bigoted man who railed against blacks and then at the end of the story, laid wounded, and woke to the surprise of a black man giving him his blood; he was the only man in the unit with his blood type, LOL... Regarding: "How do you know the "heterosexual" blood you're getting isn't from a pedophile or someone who's into bestiality?" Actually IMHO, the argument above was appropriate and quite on target; in summary, what I believe the The_Jelly is saying, is there is no way in the world that one can accurately determine if blood one receives from a transfusion is or isn't from a source who's social or political viewpoint, race or culture, et cetera, is in line with that of our own. You may get blood just as easily from a criminal as you would from a poor Chinese farmer, his cross dressing son, or dog fucking daughter. The fact is, that donation from gay men have actually been going on for quite some time now. Not all donations are out of the closet, so to speak, and some clandestinely gay men have been donating for years. Further, generally unknown to the public at large, there is a small segment of sero-positive people who feel compelled to donate blood as a emotional crutch, even with their implicit knowledge that they're infected, as a psychological reassurance of their being of continued worth as well as a denial of their disease related restrictions. Most donations, regardless of sexual orientation, are from people who are totally ignorant of their HIV status. All of the above has been going on for decades. All blood is screened and HIV affected blood is always found in a percentage of donations as a matter of routine. So in essence, making admittedly or openly gay men able to donate isn't really going to change the overall risks associated with banked blood. IMHO, it will have zero impact except to marginally expand the available pool of potential donators.
We all make assumptions in society. If you are told one truth but are ignorant of the other, would you ignore the one truth you we're told on the basis that you didn't know the other? <-- Picking fights For the record though, i don't think gay men donated blood is a problem.
aii yah.. Bulla you might as well become a Jehova Witness and just refuse all blood as there are a lot who gives blood to you that you are against their actions or beliefs - agree with Jelly about his argument
damn the homophobia radar has hit an all time high! Lol Bulla i don't think the sexual orientation dna is transferred through blood brah! Plus if you turn gay after blood transfusion from a gay dude thats just an excuse, it just means you were already gay but scared to come out the closet! Maybe you afraid of that! Plus i don't think blood is labeled gay or straight hahaha, but oh this is UK. And yeah taking blood from a serial rapist, serial killer or pedophile does not turn you into one of them unless you already were! Unless you already have the intention to become one you shouldn't be afraid, of course if they label each blood kit and there were choices i wouldn't choose those but they're probably not.
Well I guess I can see how some people would find this uncomfortable..... just give people a choice whether to accept blood from a gay person or not... they shouldn't be banned from trying to help though.
