h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the rules have changed - it's now only illegal for men who engage in oral or anal sex with other men. An improvement...

That's most of us blokes on here, then! And besides, shouldn't this also exclude straight women who practise oral sex on men?

You'd think so, but as has been noted, the rules aren't exactly fair.

And you speak for yourself! Chance would be a fine thing!

Well, I can count the number of times the first thing has happened to me on a single hand! It's even worse for the second! Maybe a national oral/anal sex lottery should be set up to improve our chances of receiving either or both .... then again, how often would anyone win?!

But in all seriousness, if straight women practising oral sex on men aren't excluded but gay men are, I wouldn't think that the chance of infected blood entering the banks would have reduced by much at all! (Rhetorical question: what proportion of straight women have oral sex with men on a regular basis? And how does that compare with gay men?)

Although am I right in thinking that *all* people (gay, straight or otherwise) who have anal sex cannot donate blood anyway due to the increased risk of disease transmission? (Have tried looking at UK Blood Donor website, but it takes too long to load!)

As I understand it (and I always read the form!) you are banned for life if you are a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man, even safer sex with a condom, but only banned for a year if you are a woman who has had sex with a man who has sex with men. Oh, and it's only a year for being a prostitute or intraveinous drug user as well. It's really not fair is it?

No.

I just noticed this thread. As mentioned in the 'Penis' thread, I've recently emailed the Blood Transfusion Service, asking them to explain why I can't give blood. I've had 2 confirmations that they've received my email but no answer so far (which happened when I emailed at Christmas), but they do say it can take 20 days to reply.

I'll let you know what happens.

I comletely forgot about this. This is the reply to the above from a Dr F E Boulton:

------------------

Thank you for your enquiry of 20th December which has been passed on to me for comment and explanation, and thank you for telling us about your lifestyle. I gather that you are gay and practice what is commonly known as “safe sex”, are negative for HIV and Hepatitis, and consider yourself “pretty healthy”. I note also that you are acquainted with both gay and “straight” people who are HIV positive.

However, all our donor selection rules are firmly based on epidemiology within the UK, particularly with regard to infections which can be passed on to recipients by any blood with which they get transfused. This means that we are guided by the current patterns of disease caused by such infections in the general population. Many of these diseases are also sexually transmissible, so we do take into account the latest figures from the UK Health Protection Agency. The infections we are most concerned about are HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis C (HCV), but there are several others. Also we have to realise that there may be new undiscovered infections to which some people may be prone – this was the case with AIDS before 1983.

Epidemiological analysis is a better guide for population risks than acquaintance with individuals. Hence, although you do personally know both gay and non-gay people who are HIV positive, this is no real guide as to the pattern of infection among different people throughout the country.

Over the last ten years 15,485 gay men and 18,349 heterosexuals were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in the UK: 1,782 more people in whom the ‘risk factor’ has yet to be determined were also diagnosed. In 2003 – the last whole year for which figures are available – there were 1,735 diagnoses in gay men and 3801 in heterosexuals (and 802 in whom the risk factor has yet to be determined). Although these figures clearly indicate that more heterosexuals are being diagnosed these days, it must be borne in mind that no more than 10% of men are gay – most estimates put the figure at around 5%. This clearly indicates that the gay male sector of the population are individually at most risk of getting infected with HIV/AIDS.

The annual rate of new diagnoses has increased recently – in the late 1990’s it was about 1,450. In addition, there are now probably at least 300 gay men in the UK who do not know that they are infected. Apart from anything else, this is a cause of worry to health educationalists, and indicates less general awareness among gay men than is often assumed.

We also can learn a lot from the donors whose donations are confirmed to be infected, as every time we find an infected donation we follow up the donor to counsel them and find out what the risk factor – if any – was. In recent years we have found each year that about 25 donations are infected with HIV/AIDS. Up to half of these donations are given by gay men (who did not know they were infected); half of these gay men donors had given some time in the previous two years. Of the 100 or so additional donations found to be infected with hepatitis B, and the 125 or so with hepatitis C, several are also donated by gay men some of whom have donated within the past two years. So we do know that gay men continue to give blood which has to be rejected.

We do test all donations for HIV/AIDS, HBV and HCV. Although we use the best tests available to us no test is absolutely foolproof. We therefore have to assume that of the nearly 3 million donations we test each year, we may not always get the right answer. In particular, donations collected before the infection becomes detectable – during the so-called ‘window period’ – will be missed. We cannot therefore rely absolutely on the testing to exclude infected donations, and therefore have to use the double strategy of excluding people whose lifestyle puts them at risk as well as donations which test positive for infection.

I note that you state that you practise “safe sex”. However, even the Terrence Higgins Trust does not advocate such a term as there can be no such thing as totally “safe sex”. The preferred term is “safer sex” which recognises the fact that although people can reduce the risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections by safer sex practices, the reduction cannot be to zero. Furthermore, staff at donor sessions cannot in practice determine reliably whether a gay man who comes to give blood is practising safer sex or indeed any other detail of his lifestyle apart from the fact that he is gay. We therefore have to regard all gay men as being at increased risk of acquiring such infections and passing them on in any blood they donate.

I hope this helps,

----------------------------


So there you go.

Hmmm.

I love the way straight is in inverted commas.

That's all I love about it though.

It does completely avoid all the points raised by mikeo & yourself earlier in this thread, which were pretty much the points in my initial email to NBS.

"staff at donor sessions cannot in practice determine reliably whether a gay man who comes to give blood is practising safer sex or indeed any other detail of his lifestyle apart from the fact that he is gay."

Erm, how, exactly? Because he told you he's gay? Would you take his blood if you could prove he was lying? OK, pedantic & fairly peurile analysis but you see my point.

Don't worry, I very nearly made the same point myself!

This is an issue I feel really strongly about.

To further it - they don't know if a heterosexual is practising safer sex. Or injecting drugs.

I'd also like to know why men who have sex with men are banned for life, while prostitutes and drugs users are only banned for 12 months. Even if the former are a high risk group, they are surely not any moreso than the latter.

I'm glad you posted the reply. Basically, the reply hints, but does not say, that gay men are forbidden to give blood period, with no exceptions and that's something I personally find offensive becuase it indicates that my blood is inferior to that of heterosexuals and udnelrines that gays are not equal in society. Heterosexuals practice unsafe sex as much as gays do but they can still give blood regardless whereas we are forbidden on a principle.

One other thing to add is a couple of years ago the then head of the blood transfusion service called gays "dirty little liars" for giving blood which as you can imagine caused just a little bit of offensc.

Believe me, ther eis NO WAY I would ever even consider giving blood because my blood isn't considered good enough.

"dirty little liars". I was shocked when I read that but a quick (ish, via Durham Universtity!) Google found this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,486183,00.html

CS, they know full well that heetros have sexually transmitted infections too but choose only to ban gays from giving blood on what seems to be nothing but a principle and gives out the message that gay blood is bad blood and only the blood of heterosexuals is good enough.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4610196.stm

Guerilla blood donation? Couldn't happen here...

Even they are only banned for five years!

Apart from the implicit discrimination the Blood Donation people seem to be missing the obvious point that they need blood and we've got blood. Beggars can't be choosers and all that.

(probably not the best way to put it!)

Yes but they'd rather have no blood than the blood of a homosexual. After all, they consider our blood to be abd blood, inferior blood to hetero blood and full of diseases.

Calm down dear!

I won't calm down. This is nothing but blatent discrimination which sends a signal out that we are bad and full of poison and disease.

The issue is back on the agenda again as this ban - probably the single biggest case of homophobia in the UK - is being highlighted by students across the UK in a bid to try to get this ban overturned.