Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Call to end 'offensive' gay blood donors ban



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 15 April 2008
A BAN on gay and bisexual men giving blood should be overturned, MSPs are due to be told today.
Rob McDowall, a campaigner on gay rights, has branded current blood-transfusion policy "homophobic" for not accepting blood from men who have had homosexual relationships.

Mr McDowall is due to make representations to the Scottish Parliament's
petitions committee, demanding an end to the ban. However, ScotBlood, the Scottish blood transfusion service, said it would not change the rules due to a higher risk of blood from gay men being infected with HIV.

The last figures held by the Office of National Statistics for HIV and Aids were recorded in 2005.

They show the number of heterosexuals with Aids outstripped the number of homosexuals from 1999. But they also revealed that 46 per cent of new HIV cases between 1996 and 2005 involved gay and bisexual men, even though they statistically represent just 5-10 per cent of the population.

Dr Brian McClelland, strategy director at ScotBlood, said: "This donor-selection rule is often misunderstood and perceived to be discriminatory. This is not the case.

"While the absolute number of cases of HIV in heterosexuals diagnosed annually is greater than for men who have had sex with men, when the size of the respective populations is taken into account it can be seen that the relative risk of exposure is very different."

He added: "Figures would indicate a man who has had sex with a man is seven times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual.

"Abolishing the rule for gay men would increase the risk of an HIV-infected donation entering the blood supply by about five times, and changing the rule to allow gay men to donate one year after they last had sex with a man would increase the risk by 60 per cent."

Dr McClelland said the use of condoms only reduced the chances of infection and pointed out that transfusion services in the UK have a legal requirement under the Consumer Protection Act to provide safe blood.

Mr McDowall, who is gay, was first inspired to give blood aged 19 when he saw the way two transfusions saved the life of his three-week-old niece.

But at the blood bank he was told they did not want his blood because he is gay.

He said: "Since the 1980s, the British government has tried to brush Aids and HIV under the carpet and affix this disease to the gay community – a scary shadow of homosexuality that dare not show its face in modern-day blood transfusions."

He claimed the current rules meant fewer people can give blood, potentially putting lives at risk if a lot of blood is needed in the event of a disaster.

And he added: "This outdated, homophobic and offensive rule must be changed to allow gay and bisexual people to give the gift of life."

The petition has the support of Patrick Harvie, a Green MSP, who wants a review of testing procedures.

He said: "The procedures are outdated and if we had better testing, the issue of people's lifestyles and the origin of the blood would become irrelevant."

SURGE IN HIV INFECTIONS

THE last available figures from the Office of National Statistics are from 2005 and show that HIV cases are rapidly on the increase among both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

In 2005 there were 4,049 new cases in the UK involving heterosexuals, compared with 840 in 1996.

In the gay community, the number of cases rose to a new record of 2,356 in 2005, from 1,553 in 1996.



The full article contains 608 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 April 2008 10:27 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: HIV and AIDS
 
1

Senga Jean,

15/04/2008 00:55:01
The rule is not homophobic and neither is Aids. One might say the opposite. The Green Party comment on updating tests on blood makes sense.
2

,

15/04/2008 02:02:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Richardinho,

15/04/2008 02:29:31
Am I missing something-Do they just take blood that is donated on trust? Is it not tested first to make sure it isn't HIV or anything else infected before putting it into someone else?
4

SwampFox,

St Petersburg 15/04/2008 03:02:26
#4, Blood is tested, however while the test are very good, they are not perfect.

5

cathyjulee,

New York 15/04/2008 03:59:42
Just read the news "Gay Thais allowed to donate blood" on the site BiLoves (a Web site for bisexuals and bicurious looking to explore their sexuality). I think if they are healthy enough, why deprive them of this right?
6

Beth Boyle,

NY 15/04/2008 05:22:10
I agree with #1 It's not offensive. It's a responsible position to take not to let them give blood. We have seen what happens when blood is taken from drug adicts and Gay men in the past and its not good. It's not about hurting someones feelings its about public safty. AIDs is once more on the rise in young Gay men here. Thanks but, no thanks to blood and blood products from Gay men.
7

sharon g,

WISHAW 15/04/2008 06:20:06
There must be stringent testing facilities for labs and thorough safety in avoidance of cross contamination of blood borne viruses however caused.As well as that safe sex must be adhered to to cut down the risk of infection.As I'm sure the people who are campaigning on this issue will agree.I don't think the precautions were meant to be a moral judgment or homophobic.And we can't ignore the rise in heterosexual people developing blood borne viruses too.
I was the recipient of a lot of blood recently.touch wood...that's okay.I'm so very grateful though.Should the powers that have the facts to hand on the safe acceptance /transfusion of all blood.I would gratefully accept the blood of a gay man too.MEANTIME THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN GIVE BLOOD..PLEASE PLEASE DO
8

eric,

15/04/2008 07:13:02
Surely HIV Aids etc is More Rife in Hetero circles!
9

,

15/04/2008 07:26:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

john z,

edinburgh 15/04/2008 07:32:48
The reason why this is homophobic is as follows.

There is an assumption, quite incorrectly, that all gay men have the same hedonistic lifestyle, with multiple sex partners, and risky sex practices, but this is in fact not the case. Some gay people unfortunately assume that all gay people live like that, and then promote the 'myth'.

The fact that most of the newest cases cases seen of HIV over recent years is in gay men is likely due to the fact that gay men check their sexual health regularly, whilst 'straight' men just don't. If straight men are not tested for HIV and gay men are, then obviously like day follows night, the stats will show a high incidence of HIV in gay men, but none in straight men. This is like 'noddy' level statistics.

It is easy with statistics to show just about anything you want, and this is exactly what has happened here.

In many countries around the world, donating blood is not determined by your sexuality at all. Scotland is really quite unusual in this respect.

I certainly wouldn't want blood from one of the hetero guys that has a different sexual partner every weekend, and thinks HIV is 'only fur poofs'. They are the kind of people most at risk.

Time the guys in Scottish blood woke up to their own bigotry.

Scottish blood seem to think 'straight' blood is safe. They quite clearly have no notion of the number of sexual partners some 'straight' guys have in one weekend out, whilst never ever checking their sexual health.

In the straight world, just as in the gay world, there are people who practice unsafe sex. Saying that blood is safe as it is from a straight person, is beyond stupidity.

And, to pick up on a point from someone earlier, due to the kind of homophobic bigotry seen here and in Scottish blood, some people do lie about their sexuality.
11

,

15/04/2008 07:39:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

john z,

edinburgh 15/04/2008 07:45:16
13

By your same argument, can I choose not to have Muslim blood, or straight ignorant protestant bigot blood?

Or is it offensive to discriminate on the basis of religion ?

Honestly, Scotland really is still in the dark ages.
13

Southsider once upon a time,

15/04/2008 07:45:52
This is not a case of discrimination but a sensible risk/benefit analysis.
We regularly call for common sense to be used in our lives; this is a case where the scientific (mathematical & statistical)facts are dictating what is "generally" safe for our society. Not all gay people have HIV; not all heterosexual people are free of it. The blood transfusion services in England & Sotland have no benefit to gain from banning certain parts of the population except to increase safety for the recipientrs as much as possible.
Ada regular donor I have been refused at times for reason of the countries I have visited or having a minor injury. Annoying - yes; discrimination - no.
Statistical risk analysis is more complexthan the man inthe street guessing at what is real.
14

calum,

15/04/2008 07:51:58
#15 - "By your same argument, can I choose not to have Muslim blood, or straight ignorant protestant bigot blood?" - So by your own argument, heterophobia is OK then?
15

john z,

edinburgh 15/04/2008 07:57:09
Southsider, the fact is, in many other developed countries, the risks have been assessed, and it has been found there is no added risk.

As I said above, most straight men do not ever get tested for HIV, but gay men do. The straight men with HIV aren't even tested, so they don't appear on the stats. Many years ago, there were more campaigns to get straight men to realise they were at risk from HIV, but these are not happening now. As a result, a lot of straight guys have no idea how at risk they are from HIV, and so never get tested. A much higher number of gay guys do get tested. QED, more gay HIV positive cases show up on the stats. Are you getting this??? It really is just plain old fashioned bigotry, and the people in charge know it.

Banning gay blood donations does NOT make blood safe, nor does it reduce the risk of HIV being in donated blood. It's that dolly dimple simple. Jeez..
16

john z,

edinburgh 15/04/2008 07:58:35
Number 19 read my post again, and this time concentrate, as you clearly didn't take time to understand what was being said. Doh!
17

It's me!,

15/04/2008 08:11:14
This isn't discrimination. It's commonsense but wait for the orchestrated campaign about to be launched by the gay movements. These have worked for them so far but public health is much more imported than their perceived slights.
18

mike - across the pond,

cathijulie 15/04/2008 08:19:12
lets get ONE thing straight.... (no pun intended)

donating blood is NOT a right...

its more like a moral imperative....

or a PRIVELEDGE....

IF you are to engage in "hi risk" behaviors then you should NOT be allowed to donate products that may contain blood borne pathogens... period... tests or no tests...

or are you fine with them donating blood to the pool at large.... just not for your personal needs????

and just WHO is the phobe?
19

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 15/04/2008 08:22:43
Remember the 3,000 or so haemophiliacs in the UK who are still dying of AIDS because the useless f@cking transfusion service bought in thousands of litres of HIV contaminated blood plasma from the USA? Some of it came from homosexuals in the San Francisco area and most of it come from injecting drug users who already had HIV but nobody was testing for it.

The vital thing to understand is that the USA doesnt have a 'voluntary' blood donor system. So they PAY people to give blood. The result is that many down-and-outs, drug addicts, homeless people, - sell their blood two or three times a week. That is how AIDS came to the UK - for many, many people.

Homosexual sex is a very high risk factor for HIV and the rate of infection among male homosexuals is still rising in the UK. A large proportion of gay men will be infected during their lives, not only with HIV but with gonnorhoea, chlamydia, hepatitis A,B and C. You can be tested for HIV one week and cleared - and develop it two weeks later - if you are living a promiscuous homosexual lifestyle (sex in cemeteries with strangers etc.). So testing at the blood donor station will not guarantee you are clean. Homosexuals, injecting drug users and past hepatitis sufferers are excluded from blood donation for common sense reasons - its nothing to do with prejudice.
20

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 08:37:33
There's a lot of ignorance and jerking knees flying around here this morning.

The simple fact is that HIV does not discriminate between straight and gay people.

There is *already* a ban on donation for people who answer yes to the question about engaging in any activity likely to pass on HIV. That is and should be entirely sufficient, and it has to do with sexual acts performed, not the sexual orientation of the person.

Classifying people's risk by their sexual orientation is not just inaccurate, it is downright dangerous. That's why this approach needs to change - it gives folk an entirely false sense of security.
21

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 08:39:21
#26 There are still far more promiscuous heterosexual men than there are promiscuous gay men. Infection rates are rising in both groups. Your image of the gay lifestyle is a false one, and it is leading you to a false conclusion.
22

mike - across the pond,

pay is a better idea.... 15/04/2008 08:49:07
pay is a better idea....

let the market decide

put the blood out there on the market, with behaviors listed on the litre bag...

just let it be seen how long the "gay lifestyle" bag sits in the fridge.... dropping in price every day.... while the litres of "straight" blood go flying off the shelves... like hot cakes...

of course the poor sod with B-neg blood may not have much of a choice...
23

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 08:49:52
#29 Which assertions do you feel require proof, Dave?

That HIV does not discriminate? It's a virus. They tend to work on a rather more basic level.

That there is already a question in the blood donation questionnaire which asks about risky activity? It's on the SBTS website.

That there are more promiscuous heterosexual men than gay men? The best estimate is that straight men outnumber gay men by 10:1. Do you really think that gay men are more than ten times more promiscuous than straight men? Have you ever spent time in one of our town or city centres on a Friday or Saturday night? Or in one of our sexual health clinics on a Monday morning?
24

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 08:54:49
#30 I've seen loads of documentaries about straight people - if they're not out shagging different people every night (Booze Britain), then they are in SandM clubs or swinging parties (Das Crazy Sex Show Drei) or worse. And whenever I'm out of an evening, straights are all over the place, copping off with each other and sometimes even shagging on street corners.

If I was stupid, I would make the logical leap to say that all straight behave in that way.

If you were stupid, you would think that all gay people behave in the same way.

You're not that stupid, are you?
25

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 08:55:46
#32 Did you even read what my assertion was?

"There are still far more promiscuous heterosexual men than there are promiscuous gay men."

That is what I said, that is what I meant, and that is what I have supported and you have just agreed.

Stop building straw men.
26

calum,

15/04/2008 09:00:36
#31 - Stonewall quote 6% on its own website. That is greater than 1:15, but nothing like trying to suggest that your cause is more popular than it is. And you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that heterosexuality promotes more promiscuity than homosexuality. Ever been up the Terraces?
Stop building straw men.
27

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 09:01:28
#35 Dave I never claimed what you are trying to get me to prove. That's not "avoiding the issue", that's simple logic.

I have no proof for what you want me to prove, which I why I never claimed it was true in the first place!

There exist no statistics which accurately compare the numbers of sexual partners of gay people with the number of sexual partners of straight people.

The truth which I was trying to get at and which I think even you would have to accept, is that there are both straight people and gay people who are promiscuous, and there are both straight and gay people who indulge in high-risk sexual activity.

That is my assertion, and it is unassailable.
28

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 09:05:14
#36 Once more, I never claimed that "heterosexuality promotes more promiscuity than homosexuality". In fact that sentence is meaningless. The whole point I was trying to make is that you can paint any section of society as promiscuous, but the truth is far more complex.

My assertion is that promiscuity exists in heterosexual people as well as gay people; that people in both groups engage in high-risk activity; and that many people in both groups *do not*. It is therefore illogical to discriminate on the basis of membership of one of those groups. The discrimination should occur on the basis of what high-risk activity people have engaged in.
29

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 09:12:58
#39 No Dave. You are not bothering to read the substance of my point.

The risky group is not "gay men", in just the same way as the risky group is not "straight men".

The risky group is "men who have engaged in unsafe sex".

These men exist in *both* the "gay men" and the "straight men" groups.

The fundamental issue here is assignation of a risk factor based on sexual orientation, which is a predisposition towards sexual attraction. Sexual orientation has no bearing whatsoever on disease risk. The issue is *sexual behaviour*, not sexual orientation.
30

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 09:14:04
#39 In other words, there are large numbers of men in each group whose risk of HIV is low to zero, and it makes no sense to exclude any of them from donation.
31

Pat Scot,

15/04/2008 09:23:44
39 Dave

You ask for agreement that "homosexual men are more at risk of HIV than hetrosexuals (because of the lifestyle they lead)". This implies that all homosexual men have a high risk lifestyle, which is not true.

Here's an old joke:
What do gay men do in their beds after 11pm?

They have their cocoa and listen to the radio just like other folk...

High risk behaviour cuts across all sexualities. The screening processes need to take account of behaviour, not sexuality.
32

Miss H,

15/04/2008 09:24:39
Taken to its logical conclusion you should just ban blood from men because men are the high risk group whether gay or straight aren't they?

33

McX,

15/04/2008 09:30:00
I have to say if I was lying dying on a hospital bed and required blood, it wouldn't matter one whit to me that the donor enjoyed his marital ghastliness up the bum.

Give blood.

http://www.scotblood.co.uk/
34

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 09:31:42
#42 Exactly. It is preposterous to suggest that most gay men have a high-risk lifestyle. Most gay men that I know are keen to avoid infection and act accordingly.
35

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/04/2008 09:34:16
#12 John

You miss the point John.

This ban is the result of a statistical analysis of the risks. Yes, it makes certain generalisations about sexual behaviour of gay men which clearly do not address the specific behaviour of each member of the gay community, but the risk analysis is still valid.

If and when the RATE of HIV/AIDS in the gay community reduces to the same level as in the heterosexual community then you would have my complete support in removing the ban. Until then it should remain in place.
36

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 09:41:08
#46 There is a superficial logic to your position but it ignores the points made by myself and others, that the issue is that the discrimination is based on a false distinction.

There is nothing distinguishing about sexual orientation which makes people more or less likely to have HIV.

The issue is sexual behaviour, and choices about risk. These choices are open to all people, not just gay men. Most gay men choose not to take risk, and therefore pose no increased risk as donors.
37

Laura3110,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 09:45:46
Haha, 'gay blood' what a bizarre concept.
I didn't know we were this far backwards in Scotland. I should think that if ever I need a blood transfusion, the sexuality/creed/race etc of my donor will be the least of my worries. I am actually shocked that this law existed. It's quite a strange idea to me that a disease like HIV/AIDs should be thought of still as a 'homosexual only' disease...
38

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/04/2008 09:48:27
#21 John said:

"Banning gay blood donations does NOT make blood safe, nor does it reduce the risk of HIV being in donated blood. It's that dolly dimple simple. Jeez.."

The problem is that the medical experts would disagree with the second part of your sentence. They clearly believe that the ban results in safer blood reaching patients. This has nothing to do with Scotland being in the "dark ages" and has everything to do with good science.

To be fair to you, I had never really considered your point about gay men seeking more HIV testing than heterosexual men before. As you say, this would lead to a skewing of the statistics. The question would be is that skewing significant ie would it materially affect the conclusion in the article that "Figures would indicate a man who has had sex with a man is seven times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual."

I suspect that the effect described above would have a "second order" effect on that rate.
39

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 09:51:03
45. None the less Duncan. a higher proportion of gay men have HIV, as 46 says.

The issue is that direct testing by PCR (not antibody testing) is not carried out on every donated sample. People can have the HIV virus in their blood and test anti-body negative. All aggregated batches of donated blood are tested. Some samples are not tested at all individually if there was a incomplete donation etc.

There is no risk to recipients either way if gay men were or were not allowed to donate - the testing procedures, like all public health measures including invasive surgery, must assume that all donors, patients and all surgeone etc are HIV/ HEP C positive - however, allowing donation from higher risk groups would lead probably to slightly more contaminated blood bacthes being destroyed, with attendant cost and supply issues.
40

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 09:52:03
#49 The problem is that "sex with a man" is a completely ill-defined term to be using if it's going to be applied to such a statistical concept.

There are a known set of high-risk behaviours which can result in HIV transmission. "Sex with a man" encompasses far more than those behaviours. Such sloppy definitions are at the root of this problem.
41

Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen,

15/04/2008 09:54:08
44....I me neither mate.....
42

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/04/2008 09:55:32
#47 Duncan

I understand the point you are making. I normally enjoy a robust debate with you on political issues where we ususally disagree. This subject is however much more serious than that. It would be in everyone's interests to have as wide a blood supply as possible. The issue is, how do we ensure that it is as safe as possible?

I don't like being told that we live in a backward country, particularly when this policy is based on science. For example. I have yet to hear a good reason to allow intravenous drug users donate blood even if they genuinely have never shared a needle with another drug user.
43

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 09:55:44
#50 What you say is entirely true, Ayrshire, but the same can be said for black men. A higher proportion of black men have HIV. The reason we do not ban black donors is that it is recognised quite rightly that their infection rates are not dependent on the colour of their skin. Precisely the same is true of gay men - infection rates are not dependent on the their sexual orientation. In both cases - in all cases - infection rates are dependent on risky sexual and other behaviours.
44

Pat Scot,

15/04/2008 09:55:58
Although I can understand why, from a risk management perspective, people might be inclined to categorise certain groups as high risk, that is discrimination, and should not be tolerated.

For example: those who bombed [insert target] were of [insert ethnicity] origin, so should we mistrust or demonise all people of the same origin? No, because it's blatant discrimination.

We should manage risk by behaviour, not by race, not by sexuality.
45

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 09:59:23
54. Reasonable point Duncan, black men also have a higher rate of sickle cell trait in their blood. It is interesting that no ban is in place - it is perhaps more to do with ensuring a supply of donated blood.

53. I don't think the issue is primarily of safety of donated blood, rather than protecting supply/ minimising cost and rejection of donated blood post testing.
46

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 09:59:50
#53 I appreciate that Connaughtboy. It seems fairly clear that the reason this blunt instrument of a ban is in place is that we can manage to live without the proportion of healthy donors that are removed by the ban. However, we are constantly being told that we are short of donors. There may come a time when we can't afford to omit healthy gay men from the system, at which point misleading statistics like those suggested by Brian McClelland will come back to haunt us. It would be better to be honest about it now.
47

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 10:01:55
54. Duncan, indeed - those who engage in high risk sexual activity or intravenous drug use should be excluded from donating blood, irespective of their sexuality.

It is however statistically true that a gay man and a heterosexual man engaging in similar high risk sexual activity would not have an equal statistical risk of HIV infection - the gay man (generalising UK wide) would have a higher risk.
48

Liz,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 10:08:07
This is silly.
It is nothing to do with the orientation of the donor but more to do rightly or wrongly with the percieved livestyle of the donor. Certain sexual practices are inherently more risky than others, a gay man who has not had sex can still donate. If the blood service really were homophobic then they would ban donations from lesbians too would they not?
49

Pat Scot,

15/04/2008 10:18:15
59 Liz

You're right when you say it's nothing to do with orientation, and I don't believe for one moment that the blood transfusion service is homophobic. This is not about that.

It's about discrimination against someone because they are of a particular group, in this case, gay men. The way we manage the risk can be changed quite easily. There may be an increased cost (see Ayrshire@ 56 above), but we can't tolerate practices that generalise and discriminate (and thereby demonise, potentially).


50

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 10:21:12
#58 Which comes down to the black man/gay man argument again. Statistically someone having high risk sex with a black man is at higher risk of contracting HIV.

It is interesting that on the SBTS questionnaire the issue of contact with people from sub-Saharan Africa is also an exclusion point. So there is an element of logical consistency in this approach.

For me, however, there are too many potentially useful, healthy donors being excluded by these blunt exclusions; and, potentially worse, too many false associations of risk being created in the public's mind. In terms of harm prevention, we need to be giving people clear and accurate information about risks, not fudging the issues with too-broad exclusions.
51

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/04/2008 10:30:55
#56 Ayrshire

On Radio Scotland this morning, it was stated that someone in the very early stages of infection would not necessarily test positive for HIV. So, some questions for you (since it is obvious that you have expertise in this area), is it possible for blood to prove negative but still be infected? If it tests negative will it be rejected? If it is not rejected could it infect donees (if that is a word)?
52

Senga Jean,

Scotland 15/04/2008 10:31:19
Is it not possible to alter the DNA of animals so that their blood can be used . Seems a waste to use it for black puddings. Or am I being simplistic?
53

McX,

15/04/2008 10:31:30
Delighted to see so many people talking about this.

I presume you're all regular blood donors?

Don't forget there's tea and Tunnocks tea cakes for after, and if you're heading out for a night on the tiles one glass should be enough to rock your boat.

http://www.scotblood.co.uk/
54

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 10:31:49
61. Again, reasonable. You are spot on with regard to a huge skew in the statistics - as gay men are massively more likely to get tested for HIV, the reported infection rate and rate of diagnosis of new cases in that group is much higher than in the heterosexual population.

The screening questionnaire is probably fairly inaccurate and ineffective as a tool for "safety" of blood donation based exclusion in any case - how many women whose husbands are having affairs or casual sex are aware of that when they state they don't engage in high risk behaviour?

However, this is a subjective argument about increased risk in certain groups - would we allow anyone who came from a sub-Sagaran African country with 40% HIV infection rate endemic, to give blood? probably not, so do we allow gay men who also come from an elevated risk group, to donate, given that the exclusion questionnaire is probably useless i.e do we take people's word on a questionnaire even though they may be unaware of high risk activity via their partners etc?
55

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/04/2008 10:34:04
The holy grail would surely be to allow all who wish to donate blood to do so and to have an infallible test to ensure the blood is suitable. That would mean testing all blood donated and developing an infallible test. Will that ever be practical?
56

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 10:36:08
62. Yes, in many circumstanes people can test negative on the HIV anti-body test and still be infected. Those would include recent infection, but also in cases where the viral loading in the blood is very low at various stages of the infection.

There is a more definite test - PCR (polymerase chain reaction) which tests for virally derived DNA. This is far more accurate. PCR testing is more expensive and slower.

Inidvidual blood samples from donors are tested via anti-body testing.
57

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/04/2008 10:37:04
This is an unusual thread because it has evolved in exactly the opposite way to the normal threads. Normally we see reason to start with and then a quick descent into insults. This started with the insults and surprisingly seems to have produced a fairly convergent view on the issue.
58

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 10:41:32
66 - PS - antibody tests are c 99.4% accurate - meaning that 6 in 1000 donated blood samples could be infected. Aggregated batches of donated blood are tested using PCR to ensure almost total safety.

The issue is the cost, time etc of doing combined anti-body and PCR testing on every single donation vs aggregated batches of 50 or 100 donations at blood banks - the costs would be massive.
59

davidmcn,

Glasgow 15/04/2008 10:42:10
I think it's a very blunt ban (it isn't a ban against men who have recently had anal sex, which might be more understandable; instead you're prohibited from giving blood if you've *ever* had *any* sort of sex with another man) - but this campaign seems misguided.

At the moment the policy-making is made on clinical grounds by the Blood Transfusion Service. Do we really want to set a precedent of MSPs deciding which groups are or aren't allowed to give blood?
60

Mr H 2u,

Embra 15/04/2008 10:47:24
Here's a bit of the ScotBlood statement that the Hootsmon didn't think was worthwhile running;

"The Blood Services of the UK, like those in most European countries, USA and Canada, do not accept donations from men who report that they have had sex with another man.

Over 60% of all the HIV diagnoses where the infection was likely to have been acquired in the UK were in gay men.

Other infections that are sexually transmitted and also transmitted by blood, such as hepatitis B and syphilis, are also increasing among men who have sex with men. Syphilis increased 117% from 2002 to 2006."

I think I'll side with the people who know what they're taking about on this one. And it's not just homosexuals who are banned. Read the list of exclusions before shouting "homophobia".

Heck, in America, a country where you can sell your blood, they won't take it you lived in the UK for 3 months or more between 1980 and 1996! And they won't take it at all, if you had a bllod transfusion any time after 1980.

Let's stop the ludicrous minority pandering, and just concentrate on being safe.
61

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 10:48:31
70. Indeed, it boils down to whether you would trust information given on a questionnaire to define the risk of a donor having HIV - i.e to allow gay men who state they haven't engaged in high risk activity to donate. As the questionnaire is useless (imho) given people's partners may lie to them etc you are left with generalising risk via infection rates in certain groups as a first exlcusion criteria - imperfect and giving rise to perceived discrimination.

The alternative would be to test every individual donation using combinations of tests at massive cost. And that is a question of priorities - more anti-cancer drugs for breast caner patients and more early treatment of Parkinsons vs more testing of blood donations?
62

Guga II,

Rockall 15/04/2008 10:50:49
Refusing to take blood from homosexuals happens because of the risk factors involved. Just as they will not take blood from people on certain medications, or from people who have recently visited certain countries. If, for example, you have recently visited Brazil, they will not take your blood because of Shagus disease.

So, why do the homosexual community feel that an exception should be made on their part? Homosexuals are a high risk group and thus should not have their blood used.
63

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/04/2008 10:51:17
#72 ayrshire

Thanks for the information.
64

,

15/04/2008 11:05:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

sam the god,

15/04/2008 11:07:55
There are numerous restrictions on giving blood and all are for sound medical reasons (taking certain medicines recent tattoos weight age having travelled abroad having received blood during a certain time period etc) so for the homosexuals to think they are being unduly treated is absurd they are excluded for sound medical reasons. If there was a 100% safe screening program then I would be more than happy for them to donate but at the moment that is not the case. I have donated 84 pints so far and if I had to stop for any of the medical reason that restrict giving blood I would be happy to do so as it is for the recipients health and well being.
This country pampers to much for the so called minorities and does not really care about the majority.


66

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 15/04/2008 11:17:54
#76
You are absolutely correct.
67

Stepford Nat,

15/04/2008 11:18:43
Idea - let them donate, then throw the blood away, and don't tell anyone.
68

Number 6,

Germany 15/04/2008 11:21:32
It's common practice across the world to refuse blood from gay men. The "right" to give blood does not outway the terrible risk of hiv infected blood getting into the community via donations. It's that kind of thing that puts new donors off. Thanks but no thanks.
69

yockel,

15/04/2008 11:41:24
How do they know if a chap is gay? Does it show up in the blood test or only when some nonentity brandishes his sexual prefrence?
70

,

15/04/2008 11:44:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
71

Queen D,

Glasgow 15/04/2008 12:04:01
Where is the poll Scotsman???
72

Saoghal Beag,

15/04/2008 12:04:17
78 stepford, exactly what they do with the HIV positive hetero-blood that is donated.
73

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 12:17:49
#68 Sadly the thread seems to have descended into unreasonableness again; it was nice while it lasted. It's a shame that those commenting more recently didn't bother to read the conversation up to that point, and realise that this is not about shouting homophobia, but about better understanding of the reality of risky behaviours. Oh well, it is the Scotsman forums after all...
74

,

15/04/2008 12:22:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
75

yockel,

15/04/2008 12:24:21
#78 Alternatively take donations from gay donors for gay activist donees.
76

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 12:24:23
85. Thanks for your informed and thoughtful contribution.
77

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 12:25:33
85. No doubt you wouldn't want a vaccine, life saving pharmaceutical or medical treatment developed or performed by a gay person either?
78

yockel,

15/04/2008 12:34:26
#85 Removed. I must be needing reading glasses I didn't see anything wrong with it. Was it the fact it mentioned Gordon Brown?
79

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 12:38:09
84. Duncan, therein lies the problem with your logic. You see this issue as one of educating people about risky behaviours... and that the ban on gay men donating blood sends a message that is pejorative about HIV rates (or in general) among/ about that group to the rest of the population, or minimises the risk that non-gay people perceive themselves to be at from sexually transmitted illness.

This issue should be viewed in terms of outcome for recipients of blood, statistical risk vs costs of more comprehensive screening of individual donations, predicted increase in rejection of aggregated batches if gay men were allowed to donate. On these grounds there is not much of a case for altering the policy, certainly not without studying cost of better screening or modelling impact on supply.

Using this issue to send a message or educate people about safe sex in innappropriate - there are cheaper and more effective ways to do that rather than using tangential issues like this to send messages.
80

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 13:06:26
#90 I do indeed view this issue as you succinctly describe it. While I have sympathy for where you suggest it should be viewed from, I think both issues are important.

If this restriction did not currently exist, there would not be a justification for bringing it in today in my view. The issue remains analogous to black HIV prevalence. Society is concerned about the message that would send, so why is it not concerned about the message this sends?
81

Maurice,

Fife 15/04/2008 13:13:24
The aim of this "discrimination" is to eliminate as many risks as possible. Whilst every step possible is taken to screen blood, the screenings are not infallable. The more the risk is eliminated, the better it is for the end user. That is someone who invariably cannot make a choice because of injury or lack of conciousness. I suffered cancer back in 1990. I had cheamotherapy and as a result am not allowed to donate blood even though I have been clear for over 10 years now. This too is discrimination even though it will not infect anyone else but I dont care because it may be my child that needs that blood and if there is any chance of this putting them at risk then I would avoid it and use the alternative. (blood from a person in a low risk catagory) I am not in any sense homophobic, however homosexuality is a culture/ way of life I prefer to distance myself from. This is my choice and I have every right to make choices. It would however be discrimination if Gays were prevented from receiving blood but is is a fact that proportionately Gay men have the highest rate of sexually transmitted infections than any other test group. I do not want to be faced with taking that risk for me or my family and I dont believe that many would.
82

Mr H 2u,

Embra 15/04/2008 13:20:12
Nice to see that the Snooze is now running an extremely one sided piece on this story.

Even better, they have banned anyone from commenting on it.
83

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 13:32:05
#92 You presumably accept that the risk of infection cannot be removed altogether? So from that point of view the issue is finding a set of restrictions which reduces the risk as far as possible without removing so many potential donors that not enough blood is collected.

My argument is simply that "all gay men" is not a suitable granularity for restriction; further, that it misleads people about the true risk factors of HIV, which are not to do with sexual orientation, but high-risk sexual practices.

The exclusion of gay men excludes a large number of healthy donors, and fails to exclude a significant number of potentially risky donors.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, there is an increased risk of HIV infection amongst black men; yet no-one is proposing restrictions based on skin colour. We need to address the reason for that.
84

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/04/2008 13:45:05
#84 Maybe something happens around 10:30am?
85

Jmhzx,

brighton 15/04/2008 13:56:35
Is this ban on gays giving blood just a scottish phenomena or is it world wide?

and sorry to ask a stupid question but... are gays allowed to recieve blood?
86

Jmhzx,

brighton 15/04/2008 13:57:13
... oh... and does the same also apply to Organ donation?
87

Weegie58,

15/04/2008 14:00:16
A number of posters on this thread have stated that they were unaware of the issue.

That means they are not currently donating blood as anyone donating would be aware of the issue due to the declaration made prior to giving.

If you are not currently giving blood and are able to do so within the current guidelines please make it a high priority to start giving regularly.
88

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 14:42:01
#100 There has been quite some discussion on this thread about that very issue. I wonder if your view would remain the same if you read through it? It is a far more complex issue, in my view, than you suggest.
89

Pat Scot,

15/04/2008 14:48:19
100 Scottish & proud

When you say "gay men are a higher risk group. That's a fact" do you mean promiscuous gay men, or do you include monogamous or celibate gay men in your generalisation?

Screening needs reflect behaviour, such as high risk sexual activity, or intravenous drug use. Being gay doesn't automatically mean one engages in high risk activity.

Of course giving blood isn't a right, but categorising a group as dangerous/high risk is discrimination, when there are better alternatives of assuring safety.
90

Professor Fate,

15/04/2008 15:14:30
Duncan in Edinburgh # 94


The answer to your issues centres around subsets

"My argument is simply that "all gay men" is not a suitable granularity for restriction; further, that it misleads people about the true risk factors of HIV, which are not to do with sexual orientation, but high-risk sexual practices.

The exclusion of gay men excludes a large number of healthy donors, and fails to exclude a significant number of potentially risky donors.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, there is an increased risk of HIV infection amongst black men; yet no-one is proposing restrictions based on skin colour. We need to address the reason for that."

The blood transfusion service excludes not gay men but men who have had sex with another man. IOW a celibate gay man would be allowed to give blood. “All gay men” are not excluded. Therefore there is no offence given or intended.

The issue of Black people is also addressed as a subset, although more tangentially by the Blood Transfusion service.

From the AVERT Aids charity website:

"Of these heterosexual cases, three quarters of people became infected overseas – mostly in Sub – Saharan Africa, where the global AIDS epidemic is taking its heaviest toll. Black and minority ethnic populations (mostly from African countries) accounted for 58% of HIV infections diagnosed in the UK during 2006. 4

The Blood Transfusion service excludes :
Anyone of any race who has been sexually active in parts of the world where AIDS/HIV is very common. This includes countries in Africa."

The rules exclude individuals who have indulged in risky behaviour not groups.

I would urge anyone upset by this very sensitive matter to visit the Blood Transfusion Service website where an explanation of their rules can be found.
91

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 15:25:59
#105 I appreciate your response. I am aware of the wording of the SBTS questionnaire. The problem remains that no distinction is drawn between safe and risky sexual behaviours. And the questionnaire, understandably, fails to define "sex", leaving such judgements to the individual, who must in good conscience err on the side of caution.

There are many ways in which men can have sex with men without any risk of HIV infection; there are even more ways which are extremely low risk, or low risk. There are some well-defined ways in which we know HIV transmission can readily occur, and it is those behaviours which should be discriminated against, not the simplistic and misleading "sex with men".

The SBTS web site does not give full details of the issue, unfortunately.