|
|
|
|
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11729.asp
Bloodban - epetition reply
18 May 2007
We received a petition asking:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Overturn the National Blood Service (NBS) ban stopping Gay and Bi (G&B) Men giving Blood."
Details of petition:
"Blood in the UK is tested for HIV and Hep B&C before use. The NBS say the record for testing is exceptionally good. Last year patients received three million+ units of blood and blood products, 6 of which were infected with a blood borne infection (or only 1/100th more of a risk if Gay and Bi men were to donate). UN and World Health Organisation position for blood donation is not to discriminate against groups of individuals. HIV is now at its fast growing rate in the heterosexual community. The polices of the NBS are outdated, making decisions as to whether or not your allowed to give blood on how honest you are. Internationally the following countries repealed their life Bans on G&B men giving blood: Italy South Africa Sweden Spain Portugal Russia France This petition is calling on the government to do the following: 1 Carry out a review of these NBS policies. 2 Overturn the current policy against G&B Men and instead discriminate against unsafe sexual practices."
Read the Government's response
The Government has a duty to ensure that any rules applied to blood donation by the National Blood Service (NBS) achieve a balance between risk reduction and security of supply. The self exclusion criterion concerning gay men has been reached through a close analysis of the epidemiology of confirmed HIV and Hepatitis B positive tests among blood samples from people donating blood at United Kingdom Blood Service sessions.
The Government has been advised that every year from the analysis of nearly three million donations collected by the United Kingdom and Irish Blood Services, about 40 donations are confirmed to be positive for HIV. Of these, a third to a half are given by men who, following further enquiries by the NBS, reveal that they are gay men. Some are donating for the first time but some have given at least once in the previous two years and tested negative on the previous occasion. These figures indicate that some gay men are still giving blood in spite of the current rules.
Although safer sex campaigns have had an impact, it is still considered that the risk of gay men being infected with HIV remains sufficiently high to include the criterion that they should not donate blood. Unfortunately, this means there will be healthy gay men who would be suitable for giving blood but who are excluded by the rule.
However, it is not practical to expect donor session staff to be able to differentiate between gay men with lower or with higher risk lifestyles, so all gay men have to be excluded.
[Updated on: Fri, 18 May 2007 16:27] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
So, with 40 in 3,000,000 being HIV+ and 13-20 being gay men, that is interesting.
That means that 20-27 are heterosexual and HIV+
So, presumably, we should ban all heterosexuals from giving blood, precisely because they are a higher risk in the sample of 40 than the gay ones.
There are no statistics on the real proportion of gay men donating becaue they do not say. The figures are thus entirely free of validity and the answer to the poll is one of dogma.
[Updated on: Sat, 19 May 2007 07:56]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, I got that answer today too.
as it says "However, it is not practical to expect donor session staff to be able to differentiate between gay men with lower or with higher risk lifestyles, so all gay men have to be excluded." I would just ask why that should be needed. All that is necessary is for anyone self-identifying as gay to be asked to fill in a supplementary questionnaire, which could be multiple-choice machine-marked - or even just a small program on a laptop which self-scored at the end. The questions should be clearly related to identifiable actions, which should have a sound statistical risk basis.
My experience with National Blood Service staff, unfortunately, does rather suggest that they are too immersed in the bigotry of the conviction of their own righteousness to be capable of even telling a potential donor "as you have ticked yes to one box on the main questions, could you fill in the short form on this laptop with some further information".
I'm afraid that I've found NBS employees to be surly, and amazingly careless of the welfare and lives of others - by blocking fire exits, parking in designated "disabled persons" bays, and rejecting potential donors out loud, with apparent glee, in front of friends and colleagues. I've supported the work of the NBS in the past, hosting several donor sessions a year across a number of venues, for well over a decade: their objectives are laudable, their methods - frankly - are shit.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry -- I was going to post a reply of my own, but I didn't get round to it, and I'm immensely pushed for time at the moment (trying to migrate a multi-function server from one box to another manually before going to bed).
I take exception to the way they tar all gay men with the same brush. There are many gay men who don't have anal sex; there are many (including several here) who are married or otherwise apparently straight. A lifestyle may put someone at risk; being of a certain sexuality makes no difference whatsoever unless one behaves in a particular way as a result. I'm gay but I've never had anal sex, and therefore there shouldn't be any problem with me giving blood. To discriminate on any other basis is highly unpleasant.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've always felt that the NBS could do better. I remember once getting a bollocking for missing my call. Why did I miss my call? Because they had Radio 1 blaring so loud that I couldn't hear it.
When I was diagnosed with cancer and had to have chemotherapy they dropped me like the proverbial 'hot shit'. No thank you for the 66 pints I'd given, no sympathy.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know it is probably a bit different here, but it sounds a lot like the red cross. They beg for money and want you to give your blood free so they can charge the hospital 1000.00 a pint when you need it.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
I have just come back from holiday in cuba, and found out that a chap i was talking to has the H.I.V virus and is straight, away with his wife on holiday, he looked dreadful, he is straight but i think played around when he was younger, by the way he is 78 & was diagnosed 15 years ago.
I was also talking to 2 gay men who are very healthy. need i say any more.
one is 45 and his partner 23.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'm curious
France, Ireland and Italy all screen blood donation for HIV on the basis of sexual activity, not homosexuality, and none of those countries have a ban that prohibits all gay men from giving blood. Those countries are subject to precisely the same regulations as the national blood service - the European Blood Directive.
If they can do it, why not us?
which was, rather, the gist of the angry letter i sent to Patricia Hewitt and Tony Blair after i got that reply.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
