Reader comments · Lifetime blood donation ban for gay men lifted today · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Lifetime blood donation ban for gay men lifted today

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The lifetime blood ban remains for anyone who is sexually active.

    1. Spanner1960 7 Nov 2011, 12:11pm

      Yup. And rightly so.
      It should also apply to other high risk groups such as sub-Saharan Africans who account for the majority of heterosexual HIV infections in this country.

      1. It doesn’t though.
        That would be seen as ‘racist’.
        So clearly safety considerations can be ignored depending on which at risk group you are dealing with.

        1. Methodist 7 Nov 2011, 1:06pm

          It does – even to people who have sex with higher risk groups: One of the questions is “In the last 12 months have you had sex with anyone who may ever have had sex in parts of the world where AIDS/HIV is very common (this includes most countries in Africa)? ” If you have, you are excluded. Same for sex with prostitutes or with people injecting drugs.

          1. So a gay man comes to give blood. He is in a mongamous relationship with his partner (for many years) and neither have broken the monogamy of their relationship. He answers the question – yes he has had sex with a gay man. He can not give blood even though the risk is probably significantly lower than a girl who is 22, has had sex with 20 heterosexual boys in the last 6 months – but they are not deemed by the National Blood Service as a risky group – because they are heterosexual – go figure …

        2. @dAVID

          Not often we entirely agree with each other – but I am with you on this one.

          If the reason for barring homosexual men who are sexually active is due to risk – then the same basis should be applied to other potential risks

          So why are Sub Saharan Africans not banned?

          Why are young heterosexuals who are promiscuous not banned?

          Of course, it should not be about blanket bans, it should be about carefully considered and sensitively applied guidance which ensures the primacy of safety with the blood supply and that prejudice is not applied …

          If Spain, Italy and Latvia can do it and not have ANY impact on the risk of HIV transmission then surely it is not beyond the ability of the UK to adopt similar policies?

          Of course, the reason for not banning Sub Saharan Africans or heterosexuals 16-40, who are promiscuous – is a mix of racism and because it is difficult to tell which of those who are 16-40 are promiscuous (surely that is the point with homosexuals). If the policy is ….

        3. … about safety and risk levels – then they should be equally applied. That of course would mean barring all Sub Saharan Africans and all 16-40 year olds. That would mean there would be insufficient blood. So its lazy and easier to ban gay men who are sexually active. Its not scientifically based, its not really about safety (other than being a sop to the idea that safety is being considered).

        4. Spanner1960 7 Nov 2011, 7:12pm

          Only a leftie, politically correct pillock such as yourself would view things in such a polarised manner. People cannot be defined individually, so it has to be done demographically; or would you say that banning sex workers or intravenous drug users was equally discriminatory?

          There has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere. Idiots like you are the first to complain about ‘human rights’ until you or somebody close is directly affected by it, at which point you squeal like stuck pigs.

          1. Only a person who didnt understand facts would see that the imposition of a ban on all gay men from donating blood is as much about safety as the allowing heterosexuals who have been highly promiscuous to donate …

            Of course there are other self declaring exclusions eg certain illnesses such as recent glandular fever, recent influenza etc or sex with a sex worker, IV drug use etc … but these exclusions apply to people regardless of sexuality …

            Barring one sexuality is not scientifically justifiable .. particularly when the rate of growth of HIV is higher in heterosexuals who are not being banned.

            I am not a leftie …. either – have never voted labour in my life …

            As for politically correct – you could describe me (sometimes) that way – but most people who know me wouldnt …

            I prefer to describe myself as fair, balanced and keen to see the highest level of individual freedom in society – whilst ensuring public safety.

            Individual freedom isnt relevant in blood donation ..

          2. … but provided safety is not compromised, in areas such as blood donation – then the exclusionary rules should be transparent and not based on prejudice. They should be based on scientific fact.

            The current middle group that the National Blood Service has introduced is laughable.

          3. No because all IV drug users put themselves at risk because – no matter how scrupulous they are about aseptic techniques of infection, regardless whether needles are shared or not. There is the inherent risk from using sharps in a non-clinical, non-sterile environment. (Something I have great experience in as a paramedic – I can not make my workplace sterile – I do my best to minimise contamination – but in a house, at the roadside, etc I can not do that – and it is the same with any IV drug user). Secondly, the substance they are using is not of pharmaceutical integrity – thus there is a risk of that substance in their blood stream and any contaminents. Barring IV drug users from blood donation is scientifically correct.

            As for sex workers – they are promiscuous by the nature of their work. It is the promiscuous homosexual or heterosexual who is more risky. If you can identify them they should be restricted.;

            Nonetheless, not all gay men are promiscuous or use drugs or ….

          4. … have HIV or other illnesses that are justifiable concerns in blood borne transmission.

            Those homosexuals who are risky should not be entitled to donate (either for a period, depending on the risk factor or for life if the risk factor is permanent). Equally, this should apply to heterosexuals, bisexuals etc.

            Homosexuals should not be banned simply because they are gay – it can not be scientifically justified.

          5. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2011, 8:16am

            Again, you misread, sorry, but my comments were targeted at dAVID.
            Why is it that most people that shout “racist” are white and middle class?

            Your argument holds no water, i imagine that most sex workers are very careful about safer sex, possibly even more so than gay men, as this is their livelihood. As for IV drug users, many are given free needles and sharps boxes, so have no reason to get so bad as to have to share needles. You want to make excuses for these people, yet at the same time protect gay men. The bottom line is, like all laws, they are designed to protect the majority of people, but they will never encompass every situation and some people are going to fall between two stools. All you can hope to achieve by a blanket ban is a broad sweep to hope fully eliminate the worst offenders.

            It is unfortunate that there are many gay men that are quite eligible to donate, but better to discriminate against them than allow an innocent person to become infected, just to appease a few whinging minorities.

          6. @Spanner1960

            Firstly, apologies if the comments were not directed towards me – but it was difficult to tell since they were directly under my comments and were not specifically addressed to anyone, it was difficult to determine who you were speaking to.

            Nonetheless, I stand by my comments.

            I certainly agree with you that racism can come from any person – and is not unique to white middle class people.

            Whilst, some sex workers will consistently adopt safer sex regimes – the frequency of sexual activity with numerous different partners increases the risk issues.

            Whilst many IV drug users will receive clean needles and exchange – this does not consider the risk of the impossibility of aseptic technique outside of a clinical environment. Nor does it account for impurities in the substance injected which may cause other blood borne issues. In addition not all areas of the UK have access to needle exchange services.

            I am certainly not making excuses for these groups – I am …

          7. … explaining why IV drug users and sex workers are a justifiable risk that needs exclusion. I am also explaining why gay men are not a risk in themselves, it is the bahaviour of some gay men and some heterosexuals that make them risky.

            Its a false system that judges on old fashioned assumptions which are not backed up by science.

          8. Spanner1960 9 Nov 2011, 9:47am

            @ Stu:
            My comment was “Why is it that most people that shout “racist” are white and middle class?”

            I was not talking about racists, but those that actually complain about it, because they somehow feel they have to represent other races because these people haven’t got a tongue in their heads. The reality is that most non-whites actually don’t give a flying toss; they have better things to concern themselves with instead of these petty-minded individuals that want to ban nursery rhymes for fear of offending someone.

          9. @Spanner1960

            Not my experience, either with my non-white friends or investigating racially motivated crime or with ethnic minorities as patients who were concerned about issues including racism.

            Clearly you can only talk about your own experiences and perceptions, as can I …

            Your suggesting that white middle class people are the only ones interested in racism – not my experience …

          10. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:26am

            Oh dear a poor arguement Spanner1960 just because someone has a difference of opinion to you.

        5. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:24am

          Exactly dAVID!!

      2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:23am

        It should include only those that run the risk regardless of sex, race or/and orientation. All those that should give should be free to do so. You brand of scaremongering just plays to the drama queens in the churches.

    2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:21am

      Pretty much I guess but this is still progress no matter how you look at it. Yes more needs to be done but at least we are being listened to, at last.

  2. Sean Steppie 7 Nov 2011, 11:05am

    Still rampant discrimination, brands gay men as careless & disease-ridden and ignores the facts – in 2010 42% of new HIV infections were through heterosexual sex, 38.5 through gay sex.

    1. Commander Thor 7 Nov 2011, 11:22am

      Still, a blanket ban on risky behaviour would make far more sense than a blanket ban on skin colour or sexual orientation.

      1. Exactly, which is what Latvia, Spain and Italy have introduced with no increase in risk to those receiving the blood …

        1. Germany and Poland have also abandoned a blanket ban on homosexuals and have no deferral period (eg the six months, one year, 2 years, 5 years that other nations have introduced.

          The following article clearly explains the issues with the prejudiced maintenance of any form of blanket ban on gay men donating blood:

          “It is difficult to determine the extent to which the continued exclusion of MSM from blood … donation pools are the results of deliberately discriminatory policy. Even if they are well intentioned, … their effect on the …

        2. … LGBT community is the same: to reduce confidence in public health. That effect is more likely because the exclusion is … one strand in a web of policy decisions – some clearly articulated, others less visible – that treat the community with scant respect. … The lifetime exclusion of MSM from donations of blood, tissues and organs is an artifact of a policy that lacks current justification … {the authorities] see this as a win-win situation: increased safety at no cost, but this view overlooks the problem of unintended consequences … There is no scientific justification for a blanket exclusion”.

        3. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:31am

          Indeed Stu. In fact since introducing not only has there been no increase in risk but the risk has actually dropped significantly. Something Spanner1960 chooses to ignore.

      2. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2011, 8:18am

        Yes, but who is going to own up to having unsafe sex?
        Believe it or not, sometimes people tell lies.

        1. The same as some heterosexuals tell lies currently about unsafe sex ….

          The same as the experience of Germany, Poland, Latvia, Italy and Spain – where some people will tell lies … and there has been no increase in risk

          1. Or perhaps what Spanner1960 is trying to suggest is that gay men are more dishonest than heterosexuals …

            If he isn’t suggesting this then the anticipation of lies to self declarations at blood donor sessions is irrelevant on safety grounds …

            If he is suggesting this, then I would like to see the evidence to support his contention …

          2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:36am

            Exactly. How typical that these ‘facts’ are convienently always left out.

        2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:35am

          Maybe but what is for sure is it’s clear that people like you just enjoy scaremongering for the sake of it without foundation.

          How is your comments any different from those sick individuals who refuse to be seen by a black doctor?

          If you don’t want the risk of getting anyone blood just in case if came from a healthy Gay man just that your choice. Be ignorant and died but don’t condemn others to the same fate just because you too ignorant to see beyond your fog of discrmination.

      3. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:29am

        Exactly. If we have to ban then ban all those who have risky sex not just those based on discrimination.

    2. Spanner1960 7 Nov 2011, 12:09pm

      Idiot. Do the maths. Gay men account for probably 10% of the population at best, yet account for 42% of new infections, so in real terms that is 420%. Gay men ARE careless!

      1. I agree, look on gaydar daily, and you’ll see perfect strangers hooking up, if anyone Gaydar should be held accountable for encouraging this and providing a platform.

        1. People can hook up with perfect strangers if they want to but that has nothing to do with how careful people are, I used to hook up with people but it doesn’t mean I was unsafe. Gaydar is there for people who want to use it and trust me there is plenty of ways to meet complete strangers even without it.

          1. Absolutely, Hamish

            If it was about safety then other people would be excluded too, particularly the 16-30 age range of heterosexuals where STI and HIV infections are rising exponentially – whereas the growth rate in the proportion of gay men with HIV is falling.

          2. Spanner1960 7 Nov 2011, 7:14pm

            Oh really? Check out the chatrooms and see how many people want bareback sex. It’s totally rife and irresponsible.

          3. Oh and looking in chat rooms is such a scientific way to make an appraisal of the risk of every gay man …

            For crying out loud – I thought you wanted arguments based on fact and science … not decisions based on what some people were saying in gaydar or on recon last night …

          4. Spanner1960 9 Nov 2011, 9:50am

            @Stu: I never brought up the subject of Gaydar, but I do think it is a pretty representative slice of the gay “community”.

            Gay people, like everyone else come in many flavours and good and bad. To paint us all whiter than white is doing everybody a disservice.

          5. @Spanner1960

            You brought up chat rooms, which ones did you mean? I took because you then referred to the chatrooms mentioned unprotected sex that they must be of the ilk of gaydar, recon etc – perhaps you would be able to point me to other chat rooms where bareback sex is openly talked about by gay men.

            I appreciate not all gay men are whiter than white

            Nor are all heterosexuals … and yet you are happy for them to donate ,..

            It is equally unfair to suggest that all gay men are risky … or that all heterosexuals are not …

            Its about behaviour – not orientation … be fair …

      2. Sean Steppie 7 Nov 2011, 12:39pm

        Idiot I maybe but the point is that there is an increasing number of HIV+ heterosexuals so, clearly, there are some taking risks but they are still allowed to give blood.

        Not all gay men are careless, only some. What about those in monogamous relationships? Or those who always practice safer sex?

        1. Spanner1960 9 Nov 2011, 9:53am

          It’s all about proportions. I agree that there are other sectors that need preventing from donating, but don’t throw the old straw man crap about “They do it so why can’t we?” If it is possible to filter other high risk groups such as sex workers or IV drug users, then it should be done.

          The point is, gay men are a high risk category. FACT. Just because others may be as well does not change that fact.

          1. @Spanner1960

            Its not to do with proportions, its to do with scientific and honest risk …

            People known to be HIV+ clearly should not give ..

            Sex workers are at increased risk and should not give….

            Certain illnesses and medications cause blood problems and therefore those people experiencing those illnesses and drugs should not give etc

            Saying that a gay man should not give because he is gay – is not scientific, has no concept of risk – a gay man in himself is not risky, it is behaviour that makes him risky …

            Saying that a heterosexual is less risky is fatuous, we need to consider their behaviour….

            If Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain and Latvia can do this, so can the UK … or do you really think we are inferior to these other nations?

      3. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:28am

        And your the biggest idiot for being so ignorant in that all you do is blame and make excuses which in turn damages any progress on tackling HIV.

      4. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:37am

        If your so careless thats your look out but maybe it’s time to stop judging everyone by your irresponsibility, I mean you are including yourself right being that your Gay?!

  3. … and from the bi point of view, I’ve just had confirmation that for women who’ve had sex with MSM, the 12-month deferral now only applies if the MSM in question is also excluded — though they haven’t updated the Donor Health Check Questionnaire to reflect this (yet).

  4. Then don’t have gay sex. It’s not difficult.

    1. How is life in the BNP these days Neal?.
      You’re a member of the BNP I seem to recall?

      1. Spanner1960 7 Nov 2011, 7:17pm

        What has political membership got to do with your sex life?

        1. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:39am

          Well you seem to try to profit from ignorance…

    2. “Then don’t have gay sex. It’s not difficult.”

      And then don’t have straight sex. It’s not difficult.

      Are we closer to seeing how stupid your comments are, hmmmm?

      1. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:40am

        Exactly but ignorant people only see what they want not reality.

    3. Well, that would only apply if HIV was only transmitted through homosexual sex – clearly we know this not to be the case – the majority of newly diagnosed HIV+ patients in the UK are heterosexual

    4. Spanner1960 7 Nov 2011, 7:17pm

      I don’t. What’s your point? I still wouldn’t give blood.

      1. Thats a decision you have to make …

        If, your comments about your lack of sex life are true (and I have no reason to doubt them) then you are now able to choose to give blood (provided none of the other exclusion criteria apply to you) … but it is your choice …

        If I was able to give blood (I can not due to the medication I currently take) then I would like the option of being able to be involved in giving the gift of life to someone. If I had put myself at risk in any way then I would not give blood. I regularly have check ups as recommended by the HPA. I engage in safe sex with a regular partner. I know of no reason my sexuality should prevent me giving blood – my medication means that I can not – and that is scientifically justified, and I accept this. If my medication is changed and I can – then I will be even more outraged by the policy – its unfair and unscientific.

        1. Well Said Stu :)

      2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:42am

        Your choice and given your clearly risky and irresponsible being that your ‘Gay’ you shouldn’t but stop trying to justify all those who don’t have risky sex or act responsibly and take care of themselves.

    5. Kory Stone 7 Nov 2011, 9:55pm

      How ignorant! How about heterosexual African American women which is the fastest growing HIV infected population are you bold enough to say that black women shouldn’t have sex and it’s not difficult. How about yourself are you abstinent and if so is it by choice or just that no one wants you?

      1. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:44am

        Indeed. It’s so sad to see these ignorant people and from them it’s not hard to see why we have such a problem.

    6. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:38am

      Boring and pointless as usual Neal. How very predictable.

  5. I can’t believe that the health service would not question heterosexuals who have multiple sex partners and engaging in unprotected vaginal, anal or oral sex. Is that true I wonder? What about heterosexual who travel outside the country, married or single, who have a fling and engage in unprotected sex? How would they know if their partner hasn’t had sex with an infected person, straight, bisexual or gay for that matter?

    1. I think I can field some of those questions, only from my own experiences though. They question anyone about travel over the past year or so. Travel to developed countries with minimal risk of infection is OK, but they have a list of ‘risk’ countries, and they put a temporary ban on anyone who has travelled to that country (the length of the ban varies depending on what the risks are) This applies to everyone (hetero, gay, or otherwise) regardless of any sexual contact, because it is possible to catch these through other routes. I know this because I’ve just come to the end of my ban for going into Mexico!

      I totally agree with everything you’re saying though, and ask the same questions myself. The only reason I can think of for them not doing this already is the concern that the numbers would drop significantly if they applied it to everyone. They should ask “Have you had any sexual contact with a new partner without using a barrier method in the last 12 months?”

    2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:47am

      They are supposed to ask questions but many don’t. Maybe just out of routine. I guess you could say that dropping the ban will make these questions and actions a mandatory which in turn will make for a better, safer system.

  6. I think this is a difficult issue. On the one hand the vast majority of gay men do not have HIV or Hep B and obviously these people would not cause any damage to the blood supply. However if I’d just met someone in a bar (a similar situation to the person who works in the place where you give blood and the potential donor) and they said that they knew they didn’t have HIV because they always had safer sex or that they had just come out of a monogamous relationship, I wouldn’t feel safe that they definitely didn’t have HIV and I wouldn’t put myself at risk with that person. I don’t think gay men are untruthful, I think that a lot of men with HIV just don’t know it.

  7. This whole ‘gay ban’ thing is a very confusing issue for me. I am a transgendered man, and I have previously had sex with a heterosexual man (as a ‘female’ before coming out) Technically, this would make me no different to any heterosexual cisgender female in the physical sense, but I am indeed a man who has previously had sex with a man. I was a regular blood donor, and I think it’s important to keep donating if I can because it really does save lives (and I have O Neg blood which can go into everyone)

    1. @Josh

      Regardless of how one feels about the fairness or science of the current policy – it lacks any clarity on how it should be applied to transgender people … which is another reason how it approaches different genders and orientations should be identical from a safety, science and fairness perspective

  8. what is the bloody point….discrimination still reamains meanwhile rampant straights are having unprotected sex as if it is going out of fashion and yet they’re welcomed with open arms…or should that be open veins….it makes my blood boil! Especially as it is one of the less common types and could potentially help others…arrgghhh!

    1. I think they reject boiling blood too… something about causing air bubbles in the veins? :P That said, maybe they’re working us up for a reason – if they get the host angry enough to make the blood boil, the higher temperature kills off all the ‘gay’ in the bloodstream. Wouldn’t want the straight people to catch ‘gay’ now, would we? :P (I hope to god no one takes this comment seriously! lol)

    2. Spanner1960 7 Nov 2011, 7:34pm

      Straw man argument. Blah blah.

      1. Far from it.

        If they accept blood from people who are definitely risky by their behaviour … then banning others because they belong to a person group (regardless of any risky behaviour) is risible

        Totally relevant and completely agree with Denis

      2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 9:02am

        As opposed to your ignorant one you mean?

    3. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 9:01am

      The ‘bloody point’ is this is a massive step forward and while yes more needs to be done it should be seen as the progress it is.

  9. Patrick Lyster-Todd 7 Nov 2011, 4:13pm

    Don’t listen to Keith’s hateful and bigoted contributions on here. I really do wish that these self-hating, presumably straight (or are you closet, Keith?) individuals who have nothing useful to contribute to these discussion threads could go and haunt a non-gay news site. What draws you here Keith lol? Or do you just need an outlet for all your hatred?

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 7 Nov 2011, 4:20pm

      It cant comment on most of the religious sites so it has to come to sites like this to release its bile. So sad..

      1. @Dr Guthrie

        Strange thing is happening these loast few days – we keep agreeing with each other!

        This particular troll is detestable and blind to any real scientific fact or knowledge. Unfortunately, the National Blood Service policy also seems blinkered to real facts, science or developments globally.

      2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:51am

        Indeed… Very sad.

    2. Just curious, what misery are you referring to?

      1. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:54am

        His own, clearly!!

        He hates seeing people at peace with themselves and getting on with life not feeling the need to question every bloomin thing…

      2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:55am

        Keith… it must be lonely being so uneducated.

    3. Spanner1960 7 Nov 2011, 7:20pm

      Pray tell me how homosexual men can cause babies to contract HIV?
      If you are going to accuse us of spreading disease, then you should be happy that it rids the world of gay men. However, the people “killing babies” are heterosexual, so that at least lets us off the hook.

      You can’t have it both ways, you warped and twisted little individual.

      1. Its a line he keeps throwing out, despite it being totally facetious and withough any basis in fact

      2. So the bisexual man having sex with the woman was the cause of the transmission to the woman, in the case you suggest …

        The homosexual did not have sex with the woman …

        The gay man can not be responsible for infecting the woman …

        The gay man may even have been honest about his HIV status to the bisexual man …

        The cause of the transmission to the baby, is heterosexual sex which was unprotected …

        The infection came from the bisexual man – and it is irrelevant where he contracted the virus from …

        The baby did not get the virus from the homosexual man you mention.

      3. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:56am

        Indeed Spanner1960, for once we are in agreement.

      4. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:58am

        Oh come on Stu, that level of education is completely lost on stupid people like Keith, you know that.

    4. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:51am

      Think the clue is the fact he bends over forwards to do anything to be on here despite by his own admission PinkNews trying to stop him. Ask yourself would someone not Gay make such and effort?

    5. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:53am

      “I am doing my bit for morality”

      Yeah, if you really believed that you wouldn’t be here at all.

  10. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 7 Nov 2011, 4:59pm

    Woo, it’s a step in the right direction all right, a tiny, niggardly step that has 26 years but it’s still no enough.

    I know they are only protecting the quality of their blood products but I always feel guilty when the advert plays on local radio that I’m NOT allowed to give a single pint. And now they expect me to become a monk to be able to qualify when a group of my straight mates can shag 3 or more different sexual partners a week and there is no scrutiny of that? Where’s the justice in that? It’s a ridiculous double standard that makes me feel like a 2nd class citizen all over again…

    I know it’s a minor point but didn’t HIV come from infected blood imported from the US?

    1. Even if I was to be paid to give blood, I wouldn’t on principle. We have been discriminated against for all these years, and still are. You have to abstain for a year!!! What a load of crap!!!

      1. I would donate if I could, because refusing to doesnt matter to those who put in place this prejudicial and ridiculous policy. It might matter to someone who needs the blood though …

        1. The whole point of donating blood is to save lives and despite what some alarmists are saying on here the blood is screened before use. I would give blood not because that it is a political stand to take but because my blood may save someone’s life, and I would hope that if I ever have a serious accident or surgery there is sufficient stock of blood to help me.

          As what has been said before and in related articles it should be sexual behaviour not orientation that matters, I know I have no infections because when I am sexually active I get regular tests and play safe. and most of the gay men I know do exactly the same. My straight friends most dont play safe and non have been for a test till an sti is obvious.

          1. @Daly

            My experience of dealing with people coming into a walk in health centre, where I trained as a practitioner. 20% of attendances are related to sexual health. If a gay man attended, usually it was because they had symptoms they were concerned about but felt they needed checking or reassurance – the majority tended to have had reasonable frequent sexual health checks and had some level of awareness regarding clinical facts. Whereas those who were heterosexual (regardless of age) tended to have rarely (if ever) had sexual health checks and lack any basic awareness. Many more heterosexuals were engaging in unsafe sex, because they perceived no risk. I diagnosed tertiary syphillis in 5 heterosexuals.

            It made me much more concerned about the prevalence of blood borne viruses (BBV) in the heterosexual population and their promiscuity.

            BBVs are blind to orientation. Safety should be about behaviour not orientation

    2. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2011, 8:23am

      @Mr. Ripley’s Asscrack “I know it’s a minor point but didn’t HIV come from infected blood imported from the US?”

      Well, if you call a gay flight attendant an “import”, then yes.
      He was apparently the #1 vector for the disease spreading worldwide.

      1. Spanner1960 9 Nov 2011, 9:38am

        Go ahead. Mark me down for stating facts.
        You may not like it, but it’s true, nonetheless.

        1. your evidence of these ‘facts’?

  11. I would not donate blood through principle either.

  12. Kory Stone 7 Nov 2011, 10:02pm

    How do people such as yourself function in today’s society? I will pray for you that you not be judged or punished for your attitude and beliefs toward God’s children!

    1. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:59am

      They don’t function, they just make excuses for it by trying to bring everyone else down to their low level of intelligence.

  13. Well the law is made and done, nothing you can do about it, you either want to donate and don’t have gay sexy for 12 months, ( Shouldn’t be too hard to do)

    Or you don’t give blood full stop.

    Hardly a big deal

    1. “nothing you can do about it”

      Bet you said that about equality rights before Civil Partnership and SOR came in…. all things change. Except people like you. That’s why you’re only recourse is to rant like a fool on a gay site. Its pathetic, but it happens to be the truth. Hardly a big deal, as they say.

      1. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 9:04am

        Exactly, how the ignorant play their games of discrimination hoping to shock when in fact it’s very boring.

    2. @Matthew

      How ignorant – its not a law … its guidance on restrictions that the NBS have put in place …

      There are no statutes in place to state which people should be excluded from blood donation. There are no statutory instruments regarding who should be excluded. It is mandatory guidance for the NBS, but it is not a law!

      Would you suggest that all herterosexuals under 40 also abstained from sex for 12 months, or all Sub Saharan Africans, if not – why not? Their risk factors are potentially higher than LGBT people.

    3. @Matthew

      Strange (if it were law) that you feel that it can not be undone by LGBT people … yet you seek undoing of other laws – strong smell of bias and prejudice coming from you – or just a strong smell?

  14. The whole point of donating blood is to save lives and despite what some alarmists are saying on here the blood is screened before use. I would give blood not because that it is a political stand to take but because my blood may save someone’s life, and I would hope that if I ever have a serious accident or surgery there is sufficient stock of blood to help me.

    As what has been said before and in related articles it should be sexual behaviour not orientation that matters, I know I have no infections because when I am sexually active I get regular tests and play safe. and most of the gay men I know do exactly the same. My straight friends most dont play safe and non have been for a test till an sti is obvious.

  15. “I do not agree with this”

    So what?

    You have a much power over anything of consequence as a pebble on a beach does against the tide. Its why you’re ranting and frothing, so “bravely” I might add, on a gay site.

  16. Just do what I have done since I was 18 and first started donating blood; don’t tell. I’m not a one for boasting about my sexual prowess to all and sundry, my private life is private. My attitude to sex is probably more mature than most hetros of my age. I’ve given blood nearly 70 times now without any problems and I intend to give many more, my blood is just as good as the sales rep who shags around when away from his wife.

  17. It’s wrong that gay men seemed to be the main group singled out as unsafe. However, surely it would be better just to have kept the ban and made it harder for other high-risk groups to give blood as well? Statistics quoted on the BBC website claim that with a lifetime ban, there’s a risk of one HIV infection per every 4.41m blood donations, yet with the ban lifted and a 1yr period of deferral, this goes up to just 1 in every 4.38m. It may be a small difference, but it’s still significant. I appreciate that the majority of gay men are very careful and do not have AIDS, and that it must feel insulting to be put in that category. However, the safety of the NHS blood supply is very important, and any chance of increasing the risk of infection should be avoided.

    1. Spanner1960 9 Nov 2011, 9:42am

      I agree with you, but just one comment – Most gay men do not have AIDS, but a larger than average proportion have the HIV virus present, which can go on to cause AIDS if untreated.

      AIDS is a serious condition that fortunately today medication can prevent, so please do a little research before making comments such as this. A little understanding goes a long way.

      1. Yeah, sorry, I think I meant to say HIV, I was just tired.

      2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 9:07am

        A narrow view only played out of the 1980’s. Things have progressed you know. Sadly people like you haven’t and are stuck in your past bubble to suit your own brand of ignorance.

    2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 9:06am

      Because their are plenty of Gay men who are able to give blood to save lifes and should be able to. Time to allow all who can and ban all that can’t not play on discriminating ways to play put down because it suits.

  18. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:20am

    This is good progress though now lets follow the lead of other countries and make giving blood and equal affair with all those safe and able giving no matter who they are and all those who take the risks banned equally, regardless of orientation.

  19. burningworm 11 Nov 2011, 8:48am

    It is a step. More steps are needed.

    One finger snap.

  20. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 8:49am

    Shcok, horror…. but mainly how predictable and boring.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.