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.

This is despite the fact 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.

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.
http://news.scotsman.com/hivandaids/...gay.3980676.jp

No doubt this will be good news to people such as Equinox. Nevertheless not all homosexual men have HIV and not all of them engage in irresponsible sexual behaviour.

IMO we should not allow 'rights' of political correctness to get in the way of the safety of the general public. It has been a long time since I last donated blood and at that time not only were sexually active homosexual men banned from donating, but also people who injected recreational drugs, people from sub Sahara Africa or people who had sexual relations with them. I hope these people are also still banned.

Why not just ban everyone who has sex from giving blood? Sexual orientation doesn't guarantee someone practices safe sex. Straights can be just as irresponsible, especially those that think HIV is just a gay problem.

Perhaps it would make sense to test the blood before making it available to patients who need it. If that is not practical, then certainly banning those at high risk makes good sense.

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman Perhaps it would make sense to test the blood before making it available to patients who need it. If that is not practical, then certainly banning those at high risk makes good sense.

These days blood is tested for HIV and other diseases, so this is really a none issue.

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman Perhaps it would make sense to test the blood before making it available to patients who need it. If that is not practical, then certainly banning those at high risk makes good sense.

Testing it would make sense, especially as there's a shortage of blood donors - I don't know how practical it is, though. Testing for glucose or hormones in the blood is quick, and you can do it in a few minutes; testing for the presence of antibodies is a longer process though and it may not be practical.

Since we don't pay blood donors in this country, I think most people are pretty responsible, and won't give blood if they're high risk. It would make sense to ban those at high risk, but how would you know? A gay couple who've been monogamous for thirty years are actually very low risk, but the married lorry driver who visits prostitutes and doesn't tell anyone is very high risk; but he's not likely to admit it to the ladies with the cups of tea at the local donor centre.

You just had to bring up the whole lorry drivers and prostitutes issue, didn't you. Do you know how outraged the tabloid readers were about this? (not that they watched the programme).

Originally Posted by clangnuts You just had to bring up the whole lorry drivers and prostitutes issue, didn't you. Do you know how outraged the tabloid readers were about this? (not that they watched the programme).

Not forgetting the many lorry drivers who *are* prostitutes

Refusing to accept blood from high risk donors implies that blood from other people is not tested. If it was all tested it wouldn't matter whether the donor was high risk or not. So that means patients can be given untested blood from low risk donors. A low risk donor would seem to be defined as someone who hasn't admitted to being high risk. Am I missing something here?

Originally Posted by Archie Refusing to accept blood from high risk donors implies that blood from other people is not tested. If it was all tested it wouldn't matter whether the donor was high risk or not. So that means patients can be given untested blood from low risk donors. A low risk donor would seem to be defined as someone who hasn't admitted to being high risk. Am I missing something here?

No, you're not, Archie. I was mistaken - it seems that all blood donated in the UK has indeed been tested for HIV for over 20 years.

But yes, the big worry with asking people to declare whether they're high-risk would be exactly as you say.

Originally Posted by Chris Mitchell Testing it would make sense, especially as there's a shortage of blood donors - I don't know how practical it is, though. Testing for glucose or hormones in the blood is quick, and you can do it in a few minutes; testing for the presence of antibodies is a longer process though and it may not be practical. Since we don't pay blood donors in this country, I think most people are pretty responsible, and won't give blood if they're high risk. It would make sense to ban those at high risk, but how would you know? A gay couple who've been monogamous for thirty years are actually very low risk, but the married lorry driver who visits prostitutes and doesn't tell anyone is very high risk; but he's not likely to admit it to the ladies with the cups of tea at the local donor centre.

You still get a nice cup of tea and a biscuit. Even though you give an armful.