Blood Ban: Restrictions On Gays Giving Blood Should Be Lifted, Say Lib Dems

Gay Blood

First Posted: 20/09/11 12:59 BST Updated: 20/11/11 10:12 GMT   PA

PRESS ASSOCIATION -- Restrictions on gay men giving blood should be lifted, potentially allowing a further two million people to donate, the Liberal Democrats have said.

A recent announcement that gay men would be allowed to donate only if they have not had sex for 12 months was condemned as a "ban by any other name".

Activists at the party's conference in Birmingham expressed "dismay" that the Government's shift on the issue did not go far enough and called for more stringent testing for HIV and other transfusion-transmitted diseases on all donations.

A lifetime ban on blood donation by men who had had sex with another man was put in place in the UK in the 1980s as a response to the spread of Aids and HIV.

But following a review by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs, men who have not had homosexual sex within a year will be able to donate if they meet certain other criteria.

The recommendation has been accepted by health ministers in England, Scotland and Wales, and the ban will be lifted on November 7.

But Dij Davies, from West Lothian Lib Dems, told the gathering: "This is simply a ban by another name."

He said blood stocks were dangerously low and added: "The new rules are better, don't get me wrong.

"But they are still fundamentally flawed and do not adequately safeguard the blood bank. The deferral does not take into account whether the men who have sex with men are using a condom or not, it does not separate those in a relationship from those who engage in sex with casual partners. And, crucially, it asks no such questions of heterosexual people at all."

Martin Shapland, from Vauxhall, south London, said the original outright ban was a "hangover of a Thatcherite stigma when HIV was seen solely as a gay disease" but the majority of people diagnosed today were straight.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

PRESS ASSOCIATION -- Restrictions on gay men giving blood should be lifted, potentially allowing a further two million people to donate, the Liberal Democrats have said. A recent announcement that ...
PRESS ASSOCIATION -- Restrictions on gay men giving blood should be lifted, potentially allowing a further two million people to donate, the Liberal Democrats have said. A recent announcement that ...
Filed by Paul Vale  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 25
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ithaqua
08:53 AM on 09/21/2011
The way things are defies logic. Straight people who have unsafe sex are classed as lower risk than gays who have safe sex. Thats just absurd however you slice it.

Test all the blood anyway the price is worth the safety
05:56 AM on 09/21/2011
As far as I know, human blood is human blood. It's the same color and composition, regardless of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

The tainted blood from the '80's has since been controlled.

They test - or are supposed to test and screen - for all kinds of diseases, nowadays, including HIV, which they didn't know about then. Whether or not someone is gay is not going to inform a hospital as to whether or not the blood is HIV positive. They have to test the blood!

If you are a blood donor, thank you. Maybe part of you is now part of me.
05:42 AM on 09/21/2011
Hullo Huffpost U.K. Strange to come over and read, eversince they split things up into U.S., U.k., and Canada. Could it be they don't want us to talk with each other too much? .........

This is a strange article to me, as an American. First of all, U.K. and Canada have much more intelligent health care systems. Canada, single payer, U.K., socialized medicine. Either one, I would take in a New York minute rather than the criminality of what we are experiencing here in the U.S.

But back to blood transfusions. We have no such law in the U.S. thank goodness. Would you have such a law for immigrants coming from African nations where AIDS rates are so high? Who's next on the list here? Isn't the object safe blood that's been tested thoroughly, not the identity of the donor as "gay" "straight" "White" "black" "European" "immigrant" ??

Honestly, it doesn't sound like a rational way to test blood!

I was hospitalized and needed transfusions here in the U.S. - and the least of my problems were the blood transfusions. I felt gratitude towards WHOEVER donated this blood, which I felt confident the hospital tested and screened for, first. I couldn't care less if the person was gay or straight, American or African, rich and well fed, or poor and making a few extra dollars.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lawyer13
retired Lawyer, General and Psychiatric Nurse, wit
02:16 AM on 09/21/2011
This is not news it's history
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
floodberg
Attorney (ret.)
10:41 PM on 09/20/2011
Worried about HIV+ blood? Don't use straight donors.

Since 1999, the majority of transmissions in the UK are the result of heterosexual not homosexual contact. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn297.pdf

My wife had cancer; she got blood transfusions from US NIH where she was getting treatment.  Their own employees were their donors (since they were constantly tested for various diseases.)  My wife had an emergency transfusion at another hospital...and got a letter from the Red Cross saying we needed to get tested for HIV.  We both tested negative; some of our friends were not as lucky.

If you need a blood donation, bank your own if you can, get family donors, and talk to your doctor about the safest sources.  You have to pay for RC blood, and there are alternatives.
05:48 AM on 09/21/2011
When I received my transfusions, I imagined that a good number might be very heterosexually active college students who are often recruited for these blood bank charity drives. (See my other post; I am a U.S. poster.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
floodberg
Attorney (ret.)
04:24 PM on 09/21/2011
Marieantoinette1755,  I'm US as well...and my family always gave blood.  I was one of those college posters (was however in my first sexual relationship, so not promiscuous, no drugs) who always gave blood.  Got my 5 gal pin when I was in my late 20s, and my dad took me out to dinner to celebrate (tells you a lot, right?)  When I was in law school, I was driving to class and heard a radio plea for my blood type (summer, supplies are low, my blood type is rare, really bad car accident) and went to hospital.  Had them call the law school and tell them why I missed my classes; and by the time I got home both profs had called and said 'good boy!'  They took 2 pints (because they were desperate and I had my pin and card), kept me for a few hours, fed me and turned me loose.  I never even noticed the difference;  I did that in another emergency, and I'd do it again!  It's really nice to hear from someone living...recipients rarely talk about it, and we can't ask what happens in those emergencies.  I'm glad you're hanging in there and posting on HP; and now I know that sometimes it makes a difference!  For this, you get fanned!
photo
trumbull desi
If I have something pithy to say, see below
04:35 PM on 09/21/2011
I have been a long time blood donor ... my dad almost died when I was a kid because he was hemorrhaging and had a relatively rare blood type that was unavailable. Our whole family were five galloners plus.

However, I haven't been able to give blood for years because "Persons who have spent long periods of time in countries where "mad cow disease" is found are not eligible to donate. This requirement is related to concerns about variant Creutzfeld Jacob Disease (vCJD)."

I really wish they would revisit this requirement. Is that an eligibility in the UK as well?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
floodberg
Attorney (ret.)
11:13 PM on 09/22/2011
TrumbullDesi, I just checked the UK restrictions and as long as no one in your family has vCJD I think you're good to go!  On their webpage, there's a note that only 4% of the population gives blood; I didn't know it was that bad.  Here's the new US red cross page: I dunno maybe you can slide in now!  http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-alphabetical-listing#arc5 No wonder there's a shortage; geez, they're gettin' kinda picky about things.

Wow, mad-cow travel I didn't even know about; but at least you have an interesting reason why you can't give.  I'm AB- (1% of population) so they kinda want me; especially when there's a transplant or accident involving AB-.  First time I heard that call, I was so surprised but I was right near the hospital and it seemed like a good idea to stop in. One of the few times someone was happy to see a lawyer walk in the door of a hospital, if you think about it.

Then again, I don't quite get why folks aren't organ donors. I'm not gonna be using 'em, so hey, knock yourself out and take whatever you can use.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kiffanik
09:36 PM on 09/20/2011
If someone needs blood and cares if the person donating it is g@y or straight they deserve to die. Get over it people, watch Demystifying HIV/AIDS and listen the people at the forefront of research in the 1980's admit they got it all wrong but no one wants to admit it because of how much money is being made. I've got to figure out a way to make my own millions off the gullible majority in this country.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
floodberg
Attorney (ret.)
10:44 PM on 09/20/2011
Run for Parliament; you can make a fortune off the campaign contributions and perks, and if you get elected you can milk the system.  If you're incompetent, you can get a Shadow Position or maybe even a EU post! If you're US, just follow Bachmann's lead; she won't get elected but she'll be rich enough not to care.
08:18 PM on 09/20/2011
I would love to comment on this one, but NO will cover it? Aids has a way of finding its way around. Trust in the laws of nature, and the whole world wins.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:08 PM on 09/20/2011
As a 20+ year cancer survivor, I am no longer able to donate blood.  Don't know if it would be possible for me to be an organ donor.  However, given my history, I would not want to put another person in jeopardy.  There are many things that I can do other than donating blood or becoming a donor that helps humanity.  Leave the current law alone.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
floodberg
Attorney (ret.)
10:11 PM on 09/20/2011
Who38, my wife had cancer; a survivor can donate certain organs (which are low risk for cancer.)  You can ask your doctor, or call a government office to find out which ones (if that's important.)  Otherwise, mark your driver's license if you can, and advise your next of kin and attorney of your preference.  I keep a donor card in my wallet, with my attorney's phone number for authorization (he has a medical POA for me.)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:47 PM on 09/21/2011
Good to know; thanks.  And attaching your POA's phone number is a great idea.
07:32 PM on 09/20/2011
All blood should be tested for disease, regardless of the sexual preference of the donor. That being said, AIDS rates are still higher among gay men (MSM) than any other sub group.

This is US data, but I imagine it's proportionately similar to the UK.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
floodberg
Attorney (ret.)
10:45 PM on 09/20/2011
I just posted the UK figures; the rate of infection through heterosexual transmission has been higher since 1999.
photo
one1byke
Easy no Man.
03:03 PM on 09/20/2011
About Blood safety worldwide: http://www.rense.com/general20/taint.htm
- "...cutting-edge screening technology has made the risk of such infections extremely low today... [and] ... Upwards of 45% of all blood donations in poor nations go unscreened for HIV, HCV or hepatitis B"

However: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-02-23-britain-blood_N.htm
"commercial interests [takes] precedence over public health concerns," the report stated."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:10 PM on 09/20/2011
...Upwards of 45% of all blood donations in poor nations go unscreened for HIV, HCV or hepatitis B"...Another reason why you should  stockpile your own blood prior to surgery or know your donors.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Nelson Montana
Artist, Author, Composer
02:56 PM on 09/20/2011
Why was this ever in place? Isn't all donated blood tested for disease?
photo
one1byke
Easy no Man.
03:08 PM on 09/20/2011
Nope,
I posted some articles before I saw your post (Worldwide vs USA/Britain
But, here's the USA for ya! And, under Bill Clinton - a democrat at that!

http://prorev.com/blood.htm: "inmates in an Arkansas jail were paid to donate blood despite the authorities knowing they had AIDS and hepatitis."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:10 PM on 09/20/2011
No.  And the result of not doing so, is the Elizabeth Glaser Foundation.  Please donate.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:51 PM on 09/20/2011
During the 80s the blood ban on gays was brought into play not because of a fear of Aids, but because nearly 5000 people in the Uk received contaminated blood which resulted in them catching Hepatitis and HIV. To date over 2000 people have died in the UK due to receiving contaminated blood and I find it very disturbing how emotive content ("It's not fair!!) is being allowed to overrule basic common sense (never mind hygiene).

The inquiry into this blood contamination only concluded in 2009 (Look up archer inquiry) so ministers can't say they don't know anything about the effects of having contaminated blood enter the health service.

Early on this year the Government upped the payments to the victims of this contaminated blood outrage to £13,000 a year (all medical treatments are free for these poor people) and a one off payment of £50,000 when they become seriously ill.

Instead of playing the its not fair canard to a very high risk group how about the people who are promoting this agenda spend more time with the victims of those who have revived contaminated blood.