A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
















You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > More about blood.
More about blood.  [message #39550] Fri, 01 December 2006 12:53 Go to previous message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1562



OK, lets clear up some basic stuff. The procedural stuff applies only in the UK.

Cossie said:
> First, if ALL blood is adequately screened for the HIV virus, why would any restriction at all be required? The presumption must be that either -
> (a) not all blood is so screened, or
> (b) the screening is not sufficiently reliable, or
> (c) the cost of fully-reliable screening is prohibitive.

None of this is exactly the case. We cannot screen for HIV (there is no test for the actual virus) - what we test for is antibodies against the virus. There is a period known as the "window" after someone is infected with the virus, before the "seroconversion" when the antibodies become detectable. During this period the NBS can't detect that someone has the virus - that's why HIV tests should only be taken as definitively negative if tested at least twice, three months apart, after any sexual encounter.

As I understand it, the NBS dos not test an individuals blood. It mixes whole heaps of blood together, and tests the mix. If there has been one person with a blood-borne infection (HIV, hepatitis, etc) in the batch, the batch is discarded or specially treated, depending on the disease.

As regards "fully-reliable", the argument of the NBS doesn't seem to be about reliability of HIV & hepatitis screening. The current last gasp of (IMO) homophobia is to assert that gay men indulge in activities that have a higher-risk of the transmission of blood-borne infections, and that any new blood-transmissible infections are therefore first going to reach epidemic proportion in the promiscuous gay community before they are identified, so the best precaution is to ban any man who has sex with a man.
The flaw in this argument is that on average male-male sex is not that much more of an efficient transmission route than male-female sex: the key point is "promiscuity".

Now let's take a worked example of how absurd the current rules are (not mine - a copy-and-paste job, I'm afraid!).

Consider Andrew, Bob and Carol.

20 years ago at uni Andrew and Bob experiment one night. It's a one off. A year later, Bob and Carol go out for a few months, Andrew remaining celibate (for the rest of his life). At that point, none of them can donate blood.

Bob and Carol break up. Fast forward a year and a day. Andrew still cannot give blood (ever). Bob cannot give blood ever. Carol, however, can. Still claiming it is not discriminatory?

Now fast forward 20 years. Andrew, still celibate, is still under a life-ban from donating. Carol, who married David 10 years ago, is still perfectly able to give blood. David, who behind Carol's back sleeps with a different woman every Saturday night, is also fully free to give blood.
Still claim it is not discriminatory?

Then explain why Andrew and Bob may not give blood yet Carol and David can.

The NBS needs to assess on RISK. But it's sloppy and offensive to use such blunt categories as they do - and clearly homophobic in that same-sex relationships are treated differently from opposite-sex ones. All that those of us who have been fighting the NBS on this issue for the past decade are asking is that gay and straight activities should be treated equally.

Oh, and actually, that a bit more tact and care is used in telling people they can't donate - some workplaces "encourage" all staff to volunteer, and at least one gay person has been put in a very difficult position with colleagues because of the gross indifference to donors privacy that NBS staff practice.

I have had considerable dealings with the NBS over the past fifteen years: the Town Halls and other public buildings I've been responsible for have often been used for blood donor sessions. I must have dealt with a couple of hundred sessions, at least. I can unhesitatingly assert that the institutional ethos of the NBS is roughly that "we are doing good work, we have the moral upper hand, so we're going to do exactly what want and not listen to anyone 'cos we're angels so 'nyyahh' to the rest of you". This attitude used to be very common among charities, but unless they are state-run charities like the NBS has now almost disappeared: I wish the NBS would also join the rest of us in the current millenium!


(and takes deep breath. rant over. )


editd for spelling!

[Updated on: Fri, 01 December 2006 14:10]



"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
 
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message icon14.gif
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Read Message  
Previous Topic: Just a little inspiration for what ever
Next Topic: hi every one
Goto Forum:
  

[ RSS ]
We support Ukraine — Мы поддерживаем Украину — Ми підтримуємо Україну
We support Ukraine We support Ukraine We support Ukraine We support Ukraine
We support the Palestinian people in their struggle against oppression
We support Palestine We support Palestine We support Palestine We support Palestine

Please read our Copyright Statement, Disclaimer, and Privacy Policy , which opens in a new screen.
There are no age checks on this forum. If the law says you need (eg) parental consent to post here then you need that consent.
Frankly, we think such laws are silly. They do young people more harm than good. How can you possibly ask questions on a gay forum without coming out to your parents if you need consent?
So it is up to you. If you post here we assume that you are of legal age to do so or have consent if not, and we do not want to know any different
We treat everyone as having good sense and mature judgement.