OT- Blood Donors

Drysuitdiver

t4tomo wrote:

This was in the Metro the other day, which has prompted me to dig out my old blood doning card and squeeze out a pint or two.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-13721023

they particularly need B+ for this girl, but its a good thing to give blood in general.

I am due to give blood again soon, but I am B+ and have been to GOSH to be screened for the CMV negative so holding on to see if i am needed . I should have results tomorrow. if i am positive it means I can't help Mel but I can give to the general stockpile.

Confusedboy

How can the blood donor people tell who is gay, and, given that anyone who has ever had unprotected sex of any sort at any time is at some risk of having been infected with an STD, what possible difference does it make anyway? How would they know who to 'ban', as a declaration may be made dishonestly or genuinely mistakenly?

I can see the point of asking donors if they have or have had certain infections, but cannot understand what thier sexual orientation has to do with it.

As to the lesbian virgin thing, define virgin; a person who has never had sexual intercourse, or a woman with an intact hymen. It's one of those things where everyone one knows what is meant, but not precisely.....

PBo

I first gave blood in the 90s, and then went over 10 years for no discernible reason.....

try to give regularly now.

Also went to volunteer for giving platelets, but they couldn't get a sufficient vein.

There's my doping career over before it starts.....

(wonders over to pro race to start a thread about whether Lance has been refused platelet donating)

dhope

Confusedboy wrote:

How can the blood donor people tell who is gay, and, given that anyone who has ever had unprotected sex of any sort at any time is at some risk of having been infected with an STD, what possible difference does it make anyway? How would they know who to 'ban', as a declaration may be made dishonestly or genuinely mistakenly?

I can see the point of asking donors if they have or have had certain infections, but cannot understand what thier sexual orientation has to do with it.

As to the lesbian virgin thing, define virgin; a person who has never had sexual intercourse, or a woman with an intact hymen. It's one of those things where everyone one knows what is meant, but not precisely.....

They ban men that have had sex with other men as there is a greater possibility that their blood will be unsuitable for donation. I don't know how much greater the chance is but clearly enough to make it safer to ban than accept and screen after.
I'd think most people would be aware if they met the criteria and I can't imagine many would be 'dishonestly' giving blood.

PBo

Confusedboy wrote:

How can the blood donor people tell who is gay, and, given that anyone who has ever had unprotected sex of any sort at any time is at some risk of having been infected with an STD, what possible difference does it make anyway? How would they know who to 'ban', as a declaration may be made dishonestly or genuinely mistakenly?

I can see the point of asking donors if they have or have had certain infections, but cannot understand what thier sexual orientation has to do with it.

I think the issue is about risk of infection with HIV. Given one can be a carrier without kniowing for years, the questions are just about screening out highest risk groups.....nothing odd about that surely?

rick_chasey

Confusedboy wrote:

How can the blood donor people tell who is gay, and, given that anyone who has ever had unprotected sex of any sort at any time is at some risk of having been infected with an STD, what possible difference does it make anyway? How would they know who to 'ban', as a declaration may be made dishonestly or genuinely mistakenly?

I can see the point of asking donors if they have or have had certain infections, but cannot understand what thier sexual orientation has to do with it.

That's the issue the SU had/has (Sheffield University Students Union FWIW). Ultimately, STDs are not the exclusive domain of homosexual men, and the screening should really reflect that.

t4tomo

Indeed, I can't see why people are saying their rules are "unfair". It clearly based on a risk assessment and several high risk categories are asked not to donate.

Its not like these people are missing out on something, unless you count the free cup of tea and a biccie.

dhope

Rick Chasey wrote:

Confusedboy wrote:

How can the blood donor people tell who is gay, and, given that anyone who has ever had unprotected sex of any sort at any time is at some risk of having been infected with an STD, what possible difference does it make anyway? How would they know who to 'ban', as a declaration may be made dishonestly or genuinely mistakenly?

I can see the point of asking donors if they have or have had certain infections, but cannot understand what thier sexual orientation has to do with it.

That's the issue the SU had/has (Sheffield University Students Union FWIW). Ultimately, STDs are not the exclusive domain of homosexual men, and the screening should really reflect that.

Kings College LGBT took the opposite stance as the policy is based on fact and not an anti gay bias. If its more efficient to not take the blood then don't take the blood.

rick_chasey

t4tomo wrote:

Indeed, I can't see why people are saying their rules are "unfair". It clearly based on a risk assessment and several high risk categories are asked not to donate.

Its not like these people are missing out on something, unless you count the free cup of tea and a biccie.

I think they feel they should be entitled to the opportunity to help society. Equal opportunities and all that.

It makes sense. My friend was an active member of the LGBT and he was a little unsure but was won over by various people citied studies or a legal case or something in Australia.

Edit: found it: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 59316.html

dhope

Rick Chasey wrote:

t4tomo wrote:

Indeed, I can't see why people are saying their rules are "unfair". It clearly based on a risk assessment and several high risk categories are asked not to donate.

Its not like these people are missing out on something, unless you count the free cup of tea and a biccie.

I think they feel they should be entitled to the opportunity to help society. Equal opportunities and all that.

It makes sense. My friend was an active member of the LGBT and he was a little unsure but was won over by various people citied studies or a legal case or something in Australia.

Edit: found it: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 59316.html

Interesting article, slightly ruined by the lazy homophobia quote at the end, thought Johann Hari would have been more careful not to trivialise the argument.

rick_chasey

Yeah. Give him a break, he's a student.


Perhaps it's different for people in their early 20s who weren't around (or at least too young to remember) during the gay men HIV thing in the late '80s early 1990s. They don't have that HIV image, (stigma perhaps?) attached to gay males, because they weren't exposed to the mediastorm.

t4tomo

dhope wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

t4tomo wrote:

Indeed, I can't see why people are saying their rules are "unfair". It clearly based on a risk assessment and several high risk categories are asked not to donate.

Its not like these people are missing out on something, unless you count the free cup of tea and a biccie.

I think they feel they should be entitled to the opportunity to help society. Equal opportunities and all that.

It makes sense. My friend was an active member of the LGBT and he was a little unsure but was won over by various people citied studies or a legal case or something in Australia.

Edit: found it: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 59316.html

Interesting article, slightly ruined by the lazy homophobia quote at the end, thought Johann Hari would have been more careful not to trivialise the argument.

I'd have thought there was enough for want of a better word "real" discrimination out there worth fighting against without having a pop at the blood transfusion service.

I can't see that there is a much of a downside from not being given the opportunity to give blood. My Dad had abrain haemorrage 30 odd years ago and they won't take his blood even now. He's not particularly put out by it even if it doesn't make much sense.

meanredspider

SecretSam wrote:

Do it when I can, sometimes hard to get a slot in the local sessions

Are you talking blood donation or anal sex here?

Agent57

I give blood (B positive), and I'm on the NHS organ donor register, but I'm not on the bone marrow register.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah. Give him a break, he's a student.


Perhaps it's different for people in their early 20s who weren't around (or at least too young to remember) during the gay men HIV thing in the late '80s early 1990s. They don't have that HIV image, (stigma perhaps?) attached to gay males, because they weren't exposed to the mediastorm.

The TV advertising worked- I've always avoidedhaving sex with an iceberg since then

Confusedboy

I'm not saying the Blood Service is discriminating against gay men, and it does make sense to screen out 'high risk' groups, which partly answers my question, but, if the issue is about HIV, while there might at one time have been percieved to be a higher risk among gay men, those are a minority (although that's hard to believe sometimes if you spend your life watching X Factor or the like), and the blood bank is more likely to be HIV contaminated by heterosexual donors, including women, as there are so very many more of them. I would hope all blood is screened anyway, and it seems churlish to refuse a donation of types they may be short of if the donor is able to prove themselves free of STDs and HIV in particular, irrespective of sexuality.

I would be far more worried about needle-sharing drug addicts giving blood than any gay man giving it.

Agent57

I haven't died of ignorance yet, so it definitely worked.

Thumbs up if you remember when it was called The AIDS.

Drysuitdiver

Agent57 wrote:

I haven't died of ignorance yet, so it definitely worked.

Thumbs up if you remember when it was called The AIDS.

I remember it being called AIDS or HIV but never "the" .......


are you gordon brown perchance

EKE_38BPM

I thought that the incidence of HIV is much higher in the male homosexual community than in the straight community.
If it is that much higher then it does make sense not accepting their donations. If not, then just screen as they do anyway.

MonkeyMonster

i'm universal donor being O- but not allowed due to cocktail of prescription drugs and vat grown antibodies going round my system I wish I could - very important it is. Have a donor card though.

So if you can please do.

davis

Confusedboy wrote:

I'm not saying the Blood Service is discriminating against gay men, and it does make sense to screen out 'high risk' groups, which partly answers my question, but, if the issue is about HIV, while there might at one time have been percieved to be a higher risk among gay men, those are a minority (although that's hard to believe sometimes if you spend your life watching X Factor or the like), and the blood bank is more likely to be HIV contaminated by heterosexual donors, including women, as there are so very many more of them. I would hope all blood is screened anyway, and it seems churlish to refuse a donation of types they may be short of if the donor is able to prove themselves free of STDs and HIV in particular, irrespective of sexuality.

I would be far more worried about needle-sharing drug addicts giving blood than any gay man giving it.

It's all screened, but HIV doesn't show up in blood tests for around 6 months, so it's possible that it can get through the screening, so the Blood Service do a fairly broad "filter" to reduce the risk. They also ask you if you've ever injected, for exactly the same reasons.

Agent57

Drysuitdiver wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

I haven't died of ignorance yet, so it definitely worked.

Thumbs up if you remember when it was called The AIDS.

I remember it being called AIDS or HIV but never "the"

Hard to find much via Google, probably because it predates search engines and the WWW, but back in the mid 80s, I definitely remember first hearing about it as "The AIDS".

The only corroborating evidence I've located, however, is this from 1985: Santa Claus Has Got The Aids This Year - Tiny Tim

PBo

davis wrote:

Confusedboy wrote:

I'm not saying the Blood Service is discriminating against gay men, and it does make sense to screen out 'high risk' groups, which partly answers my question, but, if the issue is about HIV, while there might at one time have been percieved to be a higher risk among gay men, those are a minority (although that's hard to believe sometimes if you spend your life watching X Factor or the like), and the blood bank is more likely to be HIV contaminated by heterosexual donors, including women, as there are so very many more of them. I would hope all blood is screened anyway, and it seems churlish to refuse a donation of types they may be short of if the donor is able to prove themselves free of STDs and HIV in particular, irrespective of sexuality.

I would be far more worried about needle-sharing drug addicts giving blood than any gay man giving it.

It's all screened, but HIV doesn't show up in blood tests for around 6 months, so it's possible that it can get through the screening, so the Blood Service do a fairly broad "filter" to reduce the risk. They also ask you if you've ever injected, for exactly the same reasons.

and don't they ask if you have been/had sex with a prostitute too? Can't remember exactly - but my point is they screen other high risk groups out too, not just gay men. All seems very sensible to me.

rjsterry

PBo wrote:

davis wrote:

Confusedboy wrote:

I'm not saying the Blood Service is discriminating against gay men, and it does make sense to screen out 'high risk' groups, which partly answers my question, but, if the issue is about HIV, while there might at one time have been percieved to be a higher risk among gay men, those are a minority (although that's hard to believe sometimes if you spend your life watching X Factor or the like), and the blood bank is more likely to be HIV contaminated by heterosexual donors, including women, as there are so very many more of them. I would hope all blood is screened anyway, and it seems churlish to refuse a donation of types they may be short of if the donor is able to prove themselves free of STDs and HIV in particular, irrespective of sexuality.

I would be far more worried about needle-sharing drug addicts giving blood than any gay man giving it.

It's all screened, but HIV doesn't show up in blood tests for around 6 months, so it's possible that it can get through the screening, so the Blood Service do a fairly broad "filter" to reduce the risk. They also ask you if you've ever injected, for exactly the same reasons.

and don't they ask if you have been/had sex with a prostitute too? Can't remember exactly - but my point is they screen other high risk groups out too, not just gay men. All seems very sensible to me.

Not quite, I think the wording is 'have you ever been given drugs or money for sex?' and 'have you ever had sex with someone who has...?'. As said, there are several at risk groups which are screened out, and none of them are specifically to do with one's sexuality. From what I remember of a talk from a chap from the Terence Higgins Trust (at school, so I'm thinking back a bit now), I think transmission rates were/are higher in the gay population, but that may be way out of date by now.

PBo

Agent57 wrote:

Drysuitdiver wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

I haven't died of ignorance yet, so it definitely worked.

Thumbs up if you remember when it was called The AIDS.

I remember it being called AIDS or HIV but never "the"

Hard to find much via Google, probably because it predates search engines and the WWW, but back in the mid 80s, I definitely remember first hearing about it as "The AIDS".

The only corroborating evidence I've located, however, is this from 1985: Santa Claus Has Got The Aids This Year - Tiny Tim

here's my slightly more authoritative contribution:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1979to2006/filmpage_aids.htm

Headhuunter

PBo wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

Drysuitdiver wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

I haven't died of ignorance yet, so it definitely worked.

Thumbs up if you remember when it was called The AIDS.

I remember it being called AIDS or HIV but never "the"

Hard to find much via Google, probably because it predates search engines and the WWW, but back in the mid 80s, I definitely remember first hearing about it as "The AIDS".

The only corroborating evidence I've located, however, is this from 1985: Santa Claus Has Got The Aids This Year - Tiny Tim

here's my slightly more authoritative contribution:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1979to2006/filmpage_aids.htm

I remember being shown that at school and I remember it being on TV...

Agent57

PBo wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

Drysuitdiver wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

I haven't died of ignorance yet, so it definitely worked.

Thumbs up if you remember when it was called The AIDS.

I remember it being called AIDS or HIV but never "the"

Hard to find much via Google, probably because it predates search engines and the WWW, but back in the mid 80s, I definitely remember first hearing about it as "The AIDS".

The only corroborating evidence I've located, however, is this from 1985: Santa Claus Has Got The Aids This Year - Tiny Tim

here's my slightly more authoritative contribution:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1979to2006/filmpage_aids.htm

That's from 1987, at least a couple of years after we started hearing about AIDS. I'm only claiming that when it first came into the public eye, it was referred to as "the AIDS"; I don't deny it later came to be known as just AIDS.

PBo

fair point

graeme_s-2

For those who were worried that bone marrow donation might be too painful:

Alice Pyne wrote:

I read on someones post that it is really painful. Well, mostly bone marrow is taken as cells via a needle and I have had it done. I was 13 when I had my first transplant and because they used my own cells, I had to have them taken out (they call it harvested) and then stored and put back in some months later after more chemo. I'm not just saying this, but it really didn't hurt at all. I had a tiny bruise from the needles and that was about it. I was a bit tired too but I'm always tired so that may not have been the cells.

I'm pretty sure they only extract bone marrow if you've matched someone who you can actually help.

I donate blood regularly, but have never added myself to the bone marrow register. Intend to do this next time I donate now.

One of the things that excludes you from donating blood is if you are currently waiting the results of an STD test. I gave blood on a University campus two years ago, and the donation service were visiting during some safe sex week on campus. The day before the blood donation day they'd had nurses on campus encouraging everyone to be tested for STDs as a routine better-safe-than-sorry test, which meant loads of would-be donors discovered they were unable to donate - D'oh!

Drysuitdiver

#bloodformelanie

Kings college hospital have asked me to go in on Mondy to check i am fit and well enough to donate to Mel . lets hope I am