Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

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.



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.
92

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 15:31:34
#107 Why do you think I should be one or the other? I could be both, or neither. As it is it is nothing whatsoever to do with you.
93

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 15:40:15
#109 What Labour party membership?
94

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 15:58:07
#111 Well done on proving yourself to be a juvenile troll.
95

Professor Fate,

15/04/2008 16:03:15
Duncan # 106

I don't think it's practical to reduce the matter of exclusion to the level of detail you are thinking of given the mechanics and biology of human sexual activities. All sorts of things get into all sorts of odd places do they not. Then there are split condoms, moments of madness, drunken nights out , bad memory etc.

But the whole thing centres around offence and I think that the Blood Transfusion Service's rules are , as well as being entirely non-judgemental, as fair as they can reasonably be in the circumstances.
96

Duncan in Edinburgh,

15/04/2008 16:13:28
#113 Aye, there's the rub. The nub of the problem is that there is a false perception, in SBTS and in wider society, of what the sexual activity of MSM (men who have sex with men) typically consists of.

There is also the sad reality that more MSM take risks, partly as a result of low self-esteem and partly because of a lack of access to non-judgemental advice. And that is a *direct* result of the homophobia in society, including the self-hatred of some MSM.

Split condoms, moments of madness, drunken nights out and bad memory are just as prevalent in heterosexuals, so that is not a good argument.

A far higher proportion of gay men know their HIV status than do straight men. There is no logic in excluding those who know themselves to be negative from blood donation.
97

roughrider,

Hetro Scot 15/04/2008 16:15:42
114 The Spook in Leith,Leith.
Oh you are awfull but I like it.
lol
98

Stan1,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 16:34:26
I am appalled that 'all gay men' are being grouped together as basically slags who have no interest in thier own sexual health. Yes, there are a number of Gay men like that, but are we really saying that straight men and women are any better? You can really look at each and every city street on a weekend evening and look at the drunken crowds and say that they are all gay men misbehaving and having unsafe sex? It is absurd to think like that and those that do are showing (whether they like it or not) how bigoted they really are. At the end of the day, I actually don't care. I see posters telling me to give blood, I hear stories about blood shortages and I'm not aloud to. Your loss, not mine. Now before you all write back and say that I may need that 'uninfected' blood one day. Maybe will, but if I do I'll just take it - 'as is my right'. But I will not feel guilty about never having given any as this country will not let me. It really is quite a sad day when gay men are still (yawn) looked upon as these sexual terrorists who grind thier way through life humping everything that moves and not giving a damn about the consequences. I know people that lie about thier sexuality to give blood. That is just as abhorent to me, why should I lie about an aspect of my life I am very happy with? At the end of the day, I take my sexual health very seriously, I have regular checks and I know 100% that I am (and ALWAYS have been )totally STD free. If the NHS don't want my blood, then I am very happy to keep it thank you very much. To all those 'straight' men out there judging me and what they think my lifestyle is like. Think about your sexual history and think about the risks you have taken (I'm not ust talking about HIV here, there are other diseases). And then shut up and stop pointing a finger that for all you know may soon be spotted with the signs of advanced syphilis
99

thaijambo,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 16:36:01
I've given 26 pints but I was turned down today as I've been to Thailand in the last 12 months. I have to be in Thailand on business at least twice a year now so I guess I wont be able to donate any more. I thought they would taken my blood and tested. I keep hearing they're desperate for blood but apparently they're not.
100

Sam,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 16:40:37
Why make such a fuss. Take blood given from gay men and set it aside for transfusion into other gay men. If the blood is safe as is claimed no harm will have been done. And the gay community can proudly tend to the transfusion needs of its own. Problem solved.

101

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 16:56:22
94. You make very good points Duncan, and having pondered some more on your argument, I think you have changed my mind at least with regard to a seeming singling out of one "high risk" generalised group - you are probably correct that by excluding only one high risk group this is discriminatory. Either the risk factors should look at other risk groups, or a better definition based on sexual history and other factors, irrespective or sexuality, should be used to try to exclude higher risk donors.
102

Professor Fate,

15/04/2008 17:10:44
Duncan # 115

#113 Aye, there's the rub. The nub of the problem is that there is a false perception, in SBTS and in wider society, of what the sexual activity of MSM (men who have sex with men) typically consists of.
---------------------------------------------------

There may indeed be misapprensions about this however the rules are based around the fact that :

"Men who have sex with men remain the group at greatest risk of becoming infected with HIV in the UK."

So it's not really relevant.

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

Split condoms, moments of madness, drunken nights out and bad memory are just as prevalent in heterosexuals, so that is not a good argument.

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

That's not fair Duncan, I said "Human " sexual behaviour, I didn't in any way imply that I meant MSM only. If you are going to change the rules to reflect details of sexual behaviour it would apply to everyone - so the point stands, it's impractical.

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

A far higher proportion of gay men know their HIV status than do straight men.

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

Not entirely true. All straight, monogamous, non-injecting men know with virtual 100% certainty what their HIV status is. Also, HIV tests are done routinely on straight men for many different reasons, it might surprise you!.

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

There is also the sad reality that more MSM take risks, partly as a result of low self-esteem and partly because of a lack of access to non-judgemental advice. And that is a *direct* result of the homophobia in society, including the self-hatred of some MSM.

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

Here's my tuppence worth. Part of building self-esteem lies in learning to be stoical about things that none of us can help. Also realise that you're not alone - the fight against HIV/Aids
103

,

15/04/2008 17:16:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
104

Professor Fate,

15/04/2008 17:20:08
cont # 124

............is being won by us all together as a community. Part of this fight requires tough rules to be in place in an imperfect world. Straight people are overwhelmingly on your side (with some reservations here and there maybe). Don't compromise all this good work by being too quick to seek offence where there is clearly none intended.
105

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 17:22:22
125. What exactly is "gay" blood? Is it a little pinker than "normal" blood. No doubt "gay" clotting factors and "gay" plasma is suspect too?

It is ironic that is was slack-jawed, cretinous, knuckle-dragging dribbling morons such as yourself who gave rise to most of the problems in the 1980s with HIV in the blood transfusion system of developed oountries - had HIV been addressed as a serious public health issue sooner, and not marginalised by right-wing homophobic 'thinkers' such as your simian self, testing would have been available alot earlier and less people would have been infected by blood (mostly from IV drug users).

Now begone and take your the microscopic man-stump, which is the source of most of your self loathing, with you.
106

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 17:24:37
126 see 125. I think Duncan may have a point. Perhaps assessment of individual risk factors would give less encouragement to morons.
107

Professor Fate,

15/04/2008 17:26:21
Ayrshire # 123

a better definition based on sexual history and other factors, irrespective or sexuality, should be used to try to exclude higher risk donors.

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

I can't see any practical way this could be done, also you'd be chasing away a great many donors who wouldn't want to go on record with the details of their sex lives - my Granny for instance.

We need to be realistic about this issue - while acknowledging the upset it clearly causes to some.
108

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 17:33:44
129. Prof Fate

we already ask specific questions relating to every individual - why not just broaden the "have you had sex with a man" question to a more relevant set of questions that better correlate to actual risk factors? It may well still exlcude a lot of gay men through definition of their sexual history as higher risk, but it would exclude them on basis of risk/ history as individuals, as we exclude straight men who travel to Thailand and have sex, and not just for being gay.
109

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 17:35:48
129. ANd if donor's are not going on record with regard to their sex lives, like your Granny, how do assess their risk? It is this type of generalisation that Duncan was talking about.

ALl due respect to your granny, but if she was a highly promiscuous and frequented the Berlin Kit Kat club in the 80s she is probably a higher risk donor that most gay men from Inverness.....
110

,

15/04/2008 17:37:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
111

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 17:44:17
132. All blood is tested by antibody and PCR testing at blood banks - and is aggregated from individual donations - so the choice is really which 10 or 50 people I want blood from, so its hard to get any contaminated blood on offer from hard or soft core anyone, so maybe if you addressed any real points rather than use your lunatic scampering as a diversion from your own fixation with manhoods, the discussion would progress more smoothly.

911 is a pretty American boy band. I note your interest in it

112

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 17:45:56
132. PS - As I would certainly not want any moron bigot blood in me that could reduce my IQ to the leguminous low that you enjoy, I do hope you don't donate blood.
113

,

15/04/2008 17:57:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
114

McX,

15/04/2008 18:06:09
Agreed Drac. #135 appears to be a dribbling teed.
115

Major General Puffin-Stuff,

15/04/2008 18:06:27
#132
Wow! Good clean heterosexual "Christian" blood - mmmmm! I could drink it all day...........

Seriously, though, nice to see good old-fashioned "Christian" heterosexual ignorance and bigotry added to the debate - nice one!
116

WL,

livingston 15/04/2008 18:08:22
There is a whole list of people who can not donate blood, fort various reasons. This a SAFETY measure, not discrimination !!!
117

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 18:27:28
140. As the current testing regime, and indeed all safety protocols for all invasive surgery, has to take the assumption that all donors, patients etc are HIV+, I am not sure this is really about safety anymore. All aggregrate blood donations at blood banks are double tested, so are as safe as the currenta available tests allow.

Safety would exclude individual donations on the grounds of the risk associated with that sample. It might be that more aggregate batches of multiple donations would be contaminated if gays were allowed to donate, but there is no basis to think that if individual donations were assessed for risk - the assumed/ generalised grounds for excluding ALL donations from gay men today would still apply to if alot of donations from gay men - however, alot of gay men would be allowed to donate.

The actual risk for all blood donations is the failure rate on a 99.4% accurate test carried through the failure rate on a 99.95% accurate test. Excluding on donor type/ history reduces the risk of the potential 0.06% false negatives on the first test.
118

Conan the Librarian™,

15/04/2008 19:23:55
Is this the Scotsman?
Some excellent debate on a knotty problem for most of the thread, and only four reds.
And I've learnt a wee bit.
119

,

15/04/2008 19:58:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
120

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 20:02:39
143. "veg"

121

I agree with small knobbed, closet gay onanists,

15/04/2008 20:35:13
145. I agree
122

I agree with small knobbed, closet gay onanists,

15/04/2008 20:37:53
147. I strongly agree
123

I agree with small knobbed, closet gay onanists,

15/04/2008 20:39:01
149. I agree
124

Conan the Librarian™,

15/04/2008 20:40:17
143 145

Trolling tw@ts talk

terrible tripe

Timorously.
125

I agree with small knobbed, closet gay onanists,

15/04/2008 20:42:31
152. with you
126

I agree with small knobbed, closet gay onanists,

15/04/2008 20:44:03
154. I agree with you
127

McX,

15/04/2008 21:02:58
#156 I disagree with you if that makes you feel any better.
128

I agree with small knobbed, closet gay onanists,

15/04/2008 21:03:33
157. I disagree with you
129

Saoghal Beag,

15/04/2008 21:05:59
since all blood donated is tested for hiv and hep this really is a non-argument. the tests are reliable, as reliable as could be possible, therefore there is no reason for exclusion of any groups. They accept lieing heteros so why not truthful gays?
130

McX,

15/04/2008 21:07:45
#158 why?
131

911 was an inside job,

15/04/2008 21:09:02
So we're all agreed?

Let's move on to noofters being allowed to have franken-children...
132

morris,

edinburgh 15/04/2008 21:10:11
Of course screening of blood should always be in place,and there should never be a problem in a perfect world .Unfortunately that planet has no vacancies and we were sent here instead.
Im afriad that was the case before also,and there have been people infected through whatever human error existed in that particular case.
The need to be absolutley certain is even higher if we allow this. I am not opposed to this on purely discrimnatory grounds,provided there is an adequate safety procedure. How do we find that out? WE infect some poor sod Im afraid by accident is how it worked in the past, and clearly .....................


Thats not good enough.

This can go ahead but only where it can be demonstrated that we have procedures in place and being adhered to religiously and thats a tall order,which I am reluctant to accept on what I have seen so far.
This cannot be done on the cheap.
People have the right to expect blood which saves lives not treminates them.
Pot Luck is NOT ON.
133

I agree with small knobbed, closet gay onanists,

15/04/2008 21:10:38
161. I strongly agree
134

Saoghal Beag,

15/04/2008 21:14:45
163 and 161, away play with each other and don't come back until you've lst the acne and your voices have broken.
135

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 21:15:52
159. All blood is double tested - through antibody test at the level of each donation, and PCR testing at blood banks (usually aggregated batches)

The tests are probs 99.999% safe (as good as it gets) - the argument is whether the questionnaire to exclude people adds much, if it rules out on a group basis rather than specific individual donor activity

136

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/04/2008 21:19:25
162. Morris - where do you see "pot luck" in exclduing people on individual hisory/risk - given all blood is tested anyway?

137

McX,

15/04/2008 21:25:19
Ahoy hoy Meths, hoos and indeed poos etcetera!
138

Professor Fate,

15/04/2008 21:31:10
911 was an inside job,15/04/2008 21:09:02
So we're all agreed?

Let's move on to noofters being allowed to have franken-children...

You're outed. You've gone just one cliche too many and I smell a big, fat atheist rat.
139

.kimba.,

15/04/2008 21:43:56
115
Duncan in Edinburgh,
15/04/2008 16:13:28


saw you on the bashing the bishop thread a few weeks ago describing you odious peversion you old shirt lifter personally i would have you all on a diet of guiness and vindaloo to teach you what your rrrses r for LOL
140

rancid brown,

15/04/2008 21:52:05
What do you think of the hairy lesbian creature who claims to be a pregnant man? She must be the ugliest and most deluded female I've seen in the news this year. What a freak show! Poor kid will probably be born all deformed thanks to the hormone injections. Even if it does survive, it'll almost certainly become brainwashed and end up in homosexual relationships, like her monster mother.

I wish we lived in the 1840s, when the world was still relatively sane and family life wasn't under fierce attack from godless homosexuals.

141

john z,

edinburgh 15/04/2008 22:01:50
It's pretty simple really, the criteria for accepting or rejecting blood should be around whether the person indulges in unsafe sexual practices (straight or gay). By banning purely on the basis of sexuality, the SBTS are exhibiting the highest level of stupidity and ignorance.

As others have said above, just as many straight men and women indulge in unsafe sex, as gay men. Sadly, people who know little about homosexuality believe the cr@p they heard in the playground when they were 13, and have very little understanding of what a typical gay persons life is like - or what they get up to in bed!

A wee trip to clatty patty's (or any other 'straight night club for that matter) late on a saturday night should help the SBTS realise the stupidity of their jaundiced point of view.
142

Cockhungrycumslut,

15/04/2008 22:43:26
This looks like a nice place to let it all hang out.
143

McX,

15/04/2008 22:45:07
Good grief what an interesting monker err Miss Cockhungrycockslut
144

Cockhungrycumslut,

15/04/2008 22:50:23
Madame, if you don't mind Mr Clatty.
145

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 15/04/2008 23:35:27
Hello All,

What I find hilarious about this whole thing is that all the pro-homosexual arguments do NOT bother to address the actual statistics mentioned in the article: the numbers cannot by definition be 'homophobic', as they are just impartial numbers.

The numbers argue AGAINST changing the ban.

Secondly, just because someone argues against the political positions of homosexual groups, does NOT make that person afraid of homosexuals: it merely means that such persons OPPOSE the homosexual political agendas of such groups.

Lastly, allow me to point out that though they are in an extreme minority (double entendre intended) within the homosexual 'community', 'Bug Chasers' are REAL and 'Bug Parties' and 'Gift Givers' are also REAL.

A 'Bug Chaser' is a homosexual who is looking to actually become HIV positive (yes, I know this sounds insane, but it is fact; just look at the many homosexual web sites which have evidence of these parties) and a 'Gift Giver' is an HIV positive person who is willing to pass on the deadly virus to a still uninfected person(s).

Clean blood supplies are key to to saving lives and we have enough trouble keep it clean of serious other diseases, much less having to deal with HIV/AIDS.

We need to SUPPORT a Clean Blood System, as the lives of our families, friends, neighbors, and yes, ourselves, are at stake.

Cheers from the Rockies
146

Davy,

Peterhead 16/04/2008 01:21:44
Now everyone here seems to have there own agenda.
If it makes sense then it has to be done.
Would the same protest be in place if it was a wee village?
Some of the residents were prone to a blood disorder that could infect others.
I don’t think so.
The word gay gets mentioned then people want to start shouting oh it’s unfair.
Then you wonder why you have homophobia. Because people get sick of the gay thing getting shoved down there throats. I am a great believer in live and let live
So all the best
Let the doctors decide

147

DeniseX,

London 16/04/2008 09:33:50
I have given nearly seventy lots of blood and there are many many reasons that could prevent me giving blood. For the last ten years, I have taken a quarter of an asprin each day and as a result half of my blood cannot be used, because it is regarded as being too thin. It is a little like the passive smoking debate in that it's better to be safe than sorry.
As 211 Davy says 'Let the doctors decide'.
148

Stan1,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 11:17:45
#210 Neanderthal75

Yes sadly 'gift-givers' etc do exist, and you may have looked at 'many' web-sites. But there are also a vastly greater number of sites/gay people who detest this ridiculous attitude to HIV and AIDS. You are correct, we must have a clean blood supply system. But the point I wish to make is that not all gay blood is 'dirty' and the use of the word is offensive (and I am not saying you used it, but to state that only clean blood should you used you are suggesting that gay blood is somehow unclean). As I mentioned in my earlier post, I, along with many many gay men take my sexual health very seriously FAR more seriously in fact that most heterosexuals. I know 100% that I am STD free, how many straight men know that for a fact? Do they all get regular 6 monthly checks? I doubt it. Yes the gay 'community' is sexually orientated, but so is the straight community. You just have to go to any club on any weekend evening to see that. So as a man who happens to be gay and has NEVER had an STD in his life, why should I not be able to donate some much needed blood? Straight people do have HIV as well and the numbers are rising. The blood is donated and screened and if 'unclean' not used. So what is the real issue here? I think 911 said it best, whether he was serious or not, he does not want pillow biter blood in his system. Thats fine, I actually could not care less if he wants gay blood or not. It's up to him. It's just the venom that these comments are laced with that makes the argument very uncomfortable. Terms such as 'pillow biters' etc are actually offensive. Can't people argue thier case without such stupid terms? If you lot do not want gay blood in your veins, then fine that is your choice and you are free to choose it. But I just hope that none of you have a friend who thinks he is gay, or a child who may be gay because they must be terrified.
149

benjiuk,

uk 16/04/2008 11:55:22
While i do understand the risks of gay and bisexual men giving blood and being at risk of contracting HIV, due to its STEREOTYPICAL promiscuous behavious, what about the gay guys who get checked every 6 months, live in serious monogamous relationships and have the same idea of a relationship as those who want to settle down and have a family. Gay men like that do exist and are responsible. Can that be said for 100% of the heterosexual population?

Tear jerking campaigns regularly go out looking for donors for a child in desperate need of bone marrow or blood, yet people are being pushed aside because of a lifestyle pinned to them by those who are irresponsible and therefore all tarred with the same brush. If the drive for blood donors is so important because of huge shortages i don't understand why stringent testing couldn't be done and stereotypes can't be dropped which would help in such shortages and desperate times. As for post number 7, imagine someone close to you is in desperate need of blood products or they would die, and the only match was from a gay man who was fully aware of his sexual health status...would you still refuse?
150

911 was an inside job,

16/04/2008 15:28:54
How thrilling it must be. The Pope (a former Hitler Youth) meets President Bush, the grandson of a Nazi sympathiser. They should get Arnold (the son of an SS officer) over, then the party can really begin!

"At the age of 14, he joined the Hitler Youth..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4445279.stm

"How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

"The son of an SS nazi officer, Schwarzenegger has publicly stated that he has dreamed of being a dictator and that he admires Hitler."
http://www.arnoldexposed.com/
151

DeniseX,

London 16/04/2008 19:04:18
The first case of a heterosexual catching AIDS in this country was due to a blood transfusion. Better safe than sorry.
152

Ian Mac,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 19:36:07
Homosexuals are"seven times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual." Yes, and that risk assessment apparently accepts the claim that "they statistically represent just 5-10 per cent of the population" which is hotly contested by researchers who ignore the pressure of 'gay' organisations, and who put it at between a possible 1.9% and an unlikely 4%.

The latter are determined to pretend that they are not a very small minority and, like other campaigners for 'politically correct' causes from unrestricted immigration to abortion 'on demand' and 'man made' global warming, they prefer abuse, threats, violence, moral blackmail and direct attacks on their opponents livelihood to the risk of reasoned debate.

I have no desire to be forced to consider that a blood transfusion may be more of a threat than the accident or illness that occasioned its need.
153

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 17/04/2008 01:50:46
Hello Stan 1,

Firstly, thank you for a well reasoned and mostly animus free post (at the end, I believe your emotions got the best of you).

When I used the term 'clean' to describe the type of blood reservoir for our health systems, I was referring SOLELY to DISEASE and NOT to donors.

Secondly, there is no such thing as 'gay' blood, or 'black' blood, or 'white' blood, etc. There are 'types' of blood, A, B, O, and negative/positive attenuations thereto pertaining. I took your words as a visceral response to 911's post, and so did not take it personally, when you used the follow up term 'you lot' to describe those of us supporting the current law.

You must surely understand that your STD lifetime status is an EXCEPTION and not the rule; same for the examples of long term monogomy: there have been/are copious studies illustrating both pre-AIDS and post-AIDS sexual activity by homosexuals, and monogomy has been proven to be the EXCEPTION and not the rule.

No, I'm not saying that the studies stipulate that many, many, monogamous homosexual relationships exist and shall continue to exist. What I am saying is that you cannot take an exception and turn it into a rule, particularly a rule to change laws and INCREASE the probabilities of having a negative, serious, and potentially fatal impact on a limited supply that literally allows surgeries to take place, which saves lives.

Lastly, allow me to say that while you are correct concerning that both homosexuals and heterosexuals are 'sexually based' (as living biological creatures, how could we not be?), you are incorrect on how members of each group identify themselves (how they define their 'core identities').

The majority of heterosexuals would define their core identities based upon religion, work, family, ethnicity, even geography, BEFORE even mentioning sexuality.

The majority of homosexuals would define their core identities based almost exclusively upon their sexuality. I have made a habit of r
154

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 17/04/2008 01:55:03
Stan 1 CONT,

The majority of heterosexuals would define their core identities based upon religion, work, family, ethnicity, even geography, BEFORE even mentioning sexuality.

The majority of homosexuals would define their core identities based almost exclusively upon their sexuality. I have made a habit of reading homosexual websites, periodicals, dailies, and watching public stations programs, such as Gay USA.

The consensus from these sources support my contention relating to the definition of 'core identity'.

Regardless of our positions on this and other issues, you and I can prove to others that while we may not end up agreeing on a given issue, we can at least 'agree to disagree' in an amicable manner, and let further statistical evidence move forward the debate.

Just to let you know, I'm one of 'those people': a Born Again, Fundamentalist, Evangelical Christian, your standard 'bible thumper, in what I hope is in the strong tradition of the Pauline School (question EVERYTHING doctrinally).

Take care.

I look forward to your reply.

Cheers from the Rockies
155

Stan1,

Edinburgh 17/04/2008 15:10:56
Neanderthal75

The point I am trying, and perhaps failing, to make is that the straight population know as little if not less than the gay population when it comes to their own sexual health. STD's are on the rise across the board throughout gay and straight populas. You may be reading many websites that are run by gay people or groups, but these do not in any way chape or form represent the entire gay population, just as the enormous number of 'straight'home made pornography sites do not represent all of the heterosexual community. These sites you refer to are a red herring and should be disgarded as any sort of evidence based arguement. I disagree entirely that the majority of homosexuals would define thier core identities almost entirely on thier sexuality. Again you are drawing conclusions from web-sites based upon sex, not actual face to face interviews with gay men. So my point is why should a gay man be discriminated against who has clean bill of health when a straight person who could have had any number of sexual partners is not? You don't seem to be very realistic when you think about how straight people act, do you not accept that straight people take as many risks in thier sexual life as anyone else? I would imagine in the religious community in which you reside they do not, but again that is not the majority. The alarming rate of teenage pregnancies around the globe should be testament to that. The bottom line is YES we should be very careful as to who donates blood. BUT it can not be as cut and dry as heterosexual blood = good and homosexual blood = bad. Each person HAS to be taken as an individual case and thier sexual history and practises looked at. Even if it means still truning some people away, so what? It could mean a few extra pints of blood that could mean saving a life. As you say there is no such thing as gay blood or straight blood, there is just blood. So why can we not deal with people as just that 'people' not gay peopl
156

Stan1,

Edinburgh 17/04/2008 15:12:26
cont

not gay people and straight people. I am not saying that we must accept all blood from gay men. But let everyone come forward if they wish to donate and then if correct and safe to do so take thier donation.
157

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 17/04/2008 15:51:21
Hello again Stan1,

Now I see what the main gist of your argument was, now that you've clarified it.
I can agree with the foundational argument you make: that if the blood of ANY donor is found to be 'clean', then that person ought to be allowed to donate.
Your notation in support of one of my points is gladly noted for maximizing the clean blood supply: every pint counts toward saving a life.

Here's where you may be able to see a major concern I have, statistically and mathematically speaking:

Statistically, gay men and intravenous drug users, in North America and most of Western Europe, are STILL the fastest growing groups with NEW cases of HIV. This is not my subjective personal opinion, this is confirmed fact from the CDC and its European Counterparts.

Secondly, the testing for HIV is STILL suspect as regards 'timing'. This is why I am fully willing to accept your argument concerning heterosexual donors and the real world probability that most heterosexuals do NOT consider themselves to be anywhere near at risk as are homosexuals.

Which is why I STILL do not consider the blood supply 'safe'. We can see the fact of my suspicions, when we see new cases of HIV pop up amongst hemophiliacs, surgery patients, and yes, even dentistry patients.

The issue is certainly NOT relegated to just the issue of whether a person is homosexual or heterosexual; there are a number of other factors that should be considered. However, IF there is one group of potential donors which reflect a MUCH higher incidence of HIV infection, is it not a responsible act (considering the remaining vagaries of the testing process) by govt. to preclude the members of such a group from contributing to the blood supply; thereby minimizing the POTENTIAL for faulty testing to NOT declare an HIV infected person BEFORE he/she gives blood?

My health is so poor that I am NOT allowed to give blood. They do not want my blood in any way, shape, or form, and they do not care how 'well inten
158

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 17/04/2008 15:52:27
Hello Stan 1 CONT,

My personal health is so poor that I am NOT allowed to give blood. They do not want my blood in any way, shape, or form, and they do not care how 'well intentioned' I am about the matter. Considering the risk factors of my health (genetics, I was born with toxoplasmosis, and some other serious health problems, as well as developing yet more later in life), it would be insane for them to allow me to give blood.

Lastly, allow me to point out a contradictory note in your last posts, regarding the 'legitimacy' of the websites, periodicals, serials, and tv programs, which I use as a knowledge source, concerning homosexual issues and concerns.

Most of these are the SAME organs (Human Rights Campaign, GLAD, PFLAG, ILGA, The Advocate, OUT, Curve, Gay USA, even Dykes on Bikes,for example) are cited by leading American homosexual advocates (both homosexual and straight), the media, politicians, etc., as being the LEGITIMATE VOICES of the 'Gay Movement' and 'Gay Community(ies)'.

I must therefore ask you, just what do you accept and define as 'legitimate' sources for reliable knowledge bases pertaining to homosexual issues? I have done my due diligence as it were, in sourcing what historically have been 'mainstream' if you will, legitimate homosexual sources.

Surely you will agree to that will you not? You may not agree with all or even most of what these sources say, but I must point out that what THEY say is accepted by the majority of those accepted as legitimate and bona fide representatives of the 'homosexual community(ies)': which is why I take the time and make the effort to learn as much as I can from them.

When I made the statement that most homosexuals base their personal identities upon their sexuality, I was NOT pulling this out of my subjective hat: I was basing it upon YEARS of having read articles, listened to programs, read speeches, read websites of the primary homosexual organizations, etc.

Again, please note that my kno
159

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 17/04/2008 15:53:30
Stan1 CONT,

Again, please note that my knowledge base is NOT from a few minor sources, rather, it is from the most well known and widely respected and accepted homosexual groups and leaders extant (and some deceased).

So....I hope you will understand in light of this further clarification, why I must stand by my earlier statements, regarding the comparison between heterosexuals and homosexuals, when it comes to issues of personal identity. YOU may not personally identify this way, but the statistics say that you are a minority within your own 'community'.

Again, I look forward to your reply.

Cheers from the Rockies
160

AcrossTheSea,

Mexico 17/04/2008 22:39:59
In Mexico and the U.S., these rules are also in place. In my opinion, the rule against gay and bisexual men is clearly discriminatory, which is obvious if you see the prohibition list. Here in the government health service in Mexico, they don't even mention sex, but just say "No gays or bisexuals." The following, from the American Red Cross, is generally the same worldwide as far as sexual contact and drug use.

"You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.

You are at risk for getting infected if you

1. have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
2. are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
3. have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
4. have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above "

If we examine these rules closely, they are obviously illogical. If you were a man that had sex (undefined) with a man, even with a condom, even once...say, in 1994, or 1984, or 1977, or last month, you may never donate blood.

If you are a woman and slept with with a drug user or prostitute infected with hepatitis and HIV, you may give blood after 12 months.

If people really believe these rules protect safety of the blood supply, why hasn't the infinity rule been applied to those who have sex with the "high risk groups" instead of granting immunity after a year? If you think these guidelines are outdated, then shouldn't more scientific rules be adopted to protect our blood supply?

And in the end, shouldn't relatives who are in the hospital and in dire need of blood, be able to sign a waiver to allow a gay son or nephew with the same blood type to save their lives? Under current rules, even if you wanted to donate to your own family or partner, and they wish to personally take the risk, you can't.

I ca
161

911 was an inside job,

Lev 18:22 18/04/2008 22:46:18
It's still dirty, and wrong. Gays just want to infect us all. They're 'gift givers'!
162

Paul Hogan,

Midlands 19/04/2008 06:54:47
Heres some fire for the facts.

theres a huge case going on behind the scenes in the usa at the moment, between victims of aids transfered through blood. heres some facts in black and white that have been laid out as evidence from the US goverment.

HIV/AIDS was a by product of a engineered weapon.
HIV/AIDS tainted blood was imported into the UK, in the 80s with the sole purpose to document the effects and speed of reactions and deaths in the at risk communities (blood transfusions etc). the above is in black and white documents laid out before us judges in the on going court case, i sense a D notice coming..

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.