Petition

[Insight]

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/bloodban/

I believe the Association is doing sterling work furthering this cause, so I thought I should let you all in on the online petition recently set up regarding this issue.

Basically, it boils down to a desire for the National Blood Service to scrap/redraft/overturn their current ban on all gay/bi/any man-what-has-ever-had-sex(oral/anal)-with-another-man from giving blood - ever. Additionally, any woman who thinks she may have had sex with one of these men is banned from donating for a year after the event (yet no proof of a clear HIV screen is required after this period ends).

It has been shown over the last 5 years that infection rates are by no means solely, or even majorly associated with this section of the population. This shows the time has come for the NBS to re-evaluate how it handles donors: for example, those being able to prove sexual responsibility. I for one would be delighted to provide two concurrent "clean screens" to prove I am eligible and safe to give blood. Those married/in long term relationships may be exempt from this (all donated blood is screened before transfusion, so they would have one clear screen right there anyway). Just a thought from my tiny, frazzled mind.


If you agree with this cause, please sign.

PS If you register your vote with a hotmail address, it may send the confirmation e-mail (to which you must respond to post your signature) to your Junk Mail.

PPS Am v.v.v.tired, so this post may be poorly constructed. Apologies if so.

[hr]

Former SRC Member for Sexualities & Gender
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37101378

[Kempy]

Signed..

and..

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/juggle/

[exnihilo]

Likewse, and here's another something to keep you amused...

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/goldanthem/

[Akasha]

signed.

There is also a facebook group you can join.

See insight's FB page.

Edit: 175 already!

[Lid]

Regardless of whether I were straight or gay, I wouldn't give blood anyway.

Needles, scary and that.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[munchingfoo]

Do you really think a medical issue warrants a petition? Its the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Whether your facts are correct or not I have no way of knowing (and I very much doubt whether you do either). I wonder how many people who sign that petition are qualified enough to actually know what they are talking about.

I do not profess to know that the current system is correct, nor do I claim that you are wrong. I simply wish to state that medical decsions like this should be made by experts, not a group of under-informed randoms.

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[exnihilo]

The problem is that this decision is one that was made a good while ago based on poor understanding of a paucity of data. We know a lot more now, and we know a lot better but this ridiculously out-dated rule remains in place - in spite of the medical evidence. By signing the petition we are not asserting our vast medical knowledge, but rather expressing discontent at an unnecessary and arbitrary restriction which is ultimately to the detriment of those who need the blood in the end.

[Frank]

Quoting munchingfoo from 21:10, 23rd Nov 2006
Whether your facts are correct or not I have no way of knowing (and I very much doubt whether you do either).

I concur: I certainly don't know. However, I'm unsure as to the position of 're-evaluate'. It's a bit specific, the petition, y'know...to gays and bis.

Surely it should just be to re-evaluate the risks of donors and what constitutes a 'bannable' lifestyle/disease/etc.

The petition is ill-thought out. I support the idea of re-evaluating, but if it comes to the same conclusion that they shouldn't be allowed...what happens then?

Frank

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[exnihilo]

If it comes to the same conclusion, based on the preponderance of evidence, then so be it. But it should be re-evaluated in the light of evidence and not long-standing, ignorant, prejudice.

[Insight]

Fair enough, the petition is specific to "gays and bis" as you say Frank - but I don't reckon that the government/NBS would simply get rid of the law & allow a free for all. They would undoubtedly realise the need for re-evaluation. Banning of fairly large chunks of the population, during an endemic blood shortage, is not really very good policy - this is further compounded by the fact that techniques on the hotly debated bloodless surgery proposals have not yet fully been tested/investigated to allow their introducytion (not to mention the vast retraining it would take to get all surgeons up-to-date with it). A more up-to-date sexual risk-assessment scheme is called for, especially in a society that is more promiscuous as a whole (partiularly our generation) that it possibly ever has been in modern times.

Gay & Bi men may be more likely to have HIV/AIDS - true - but how long is it before the straight population becomes a risk group. Current trends show that although infection rates are slowing, they're still affecting more and more straight percentiles than ever. Recent discussions have spoken of further investigating/including "young people" as a high risk group.

Maybe you could e-mail one of the national gay charities for more information on this side of the argument. Granted, many of the signatories may not be qualified enough to fully comprehend the ins-and-outs of the issues, then again, how much of our general population fully understands the ins-and-outs of the working of government to be able to cast vote at election?

(Must say thank you for not resorting to the "Gays?! BAAAAAAH - bloody lot of rabid mongrels, grrrrr!" which I have encountered many-a-time in the past over this issue)

[hr]

Former SRC Member for Sexualities & Gender
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37101378

[Insight]

Quoting Insight from 00:22, 24th Nov 2006
Fair enough, the petition is specific to "gays and bis" as you say Frank - but I don't reckon that the government/NBS would simply get rid of the law & allow a free for all. They would undoubtedly realise the need for re-evaluation. Banning of fairly large chunks of the population, during an endemic blood shortage, is not really very good policy - this is further compounded by the fact that techniques on the hotly debated bloodless surgery proposals have not yet fully been tested/investigated to allow their introducytion (not to mention the vast retraining it would take to get all surgeons up-to-date with it). A more up-to-date sexual risk-assessment scheme is called for, especially in a society taht is more promiscuous as a whole (partiularly our generation) that it possibly ever has been in modern times.

Gay & Bi men may be more likely to have HIV/AIDS - true - but how long is it before the straight population becomes a risk group. Current trends show that although infection rates are slowing, they're still affecting more and more straight percentiles than ever. Recent discussions have spoken of further investigating/including "young people" as a high risk group.

Maybe you could e-mail one of the national gay charities for more information on this side of the argument. Granted, many of the signatories may not be qualified enough to fully comprehend the ins-and-outs of the issues, then again, how much of our general population fully understands the ins-and-outs of the working of government to be able to cast vote at election?

(Must say thank you for contributing to the debate without resorting to "Gays - BAAAAAH! Bloody lot of rabid mongrels grrrrr" etc - believe me, I have encountered this line of argument in the past).
[hr]

SRC Member for Sexualities & Gender
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37101378

[hr]

SRC Member for Sexualities & Gender
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37101378

[Rufus]

Quoting Lid from 21:03, 23rd Nov 2006
Regardless of whether I were straight or gay, I wouldn't give blood anyway.

Needles, scary and that.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

Not even for the Tuc biscuit and retro sticker?

[Fawksie]

My blood is unclean, because I've had a transfusion after 1980. Probably doesn't help that I'm from Northern Ireland and there's a vague chance of blood handled by the IBTB having crossed my path. Their screening procedures weren't that hot back then.

[Lid]

Quoting Rufus from 00:55, 24th Nov 2006
Not even for the Tuc biscuit and retro sticker?

My body has this weird thingy (not a medic, you say?) that when stuff is injected into me, about 10 to 20 minutes later, I go a funny colour (usually green, but mauve and ochre have been known), my eyesight goes, and the pavement jumps up and smacks me in the face.

The doctor doesn't know why, but I have no doubt it's entirely psychological.

I should assume it's the same for things being taken out of me too. Anyway, that ten minutes should give me enough time to eat my Tuc biscuit, but I should take you along just in case, to scrape me off the pavement afterwards! (Or I could just stay here, where it's fluffy and warm, with my proper blood levels and consciousness!)

Lying about my sexuality seems an adequate excuse, in retrospect!

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Kempy]

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/privatecopy/

people should definately sign up to that one

[Idealist]

It seems to me that the Blood Doner service are constantly shooting themselves in the foot. The 'Give Blood' campiagns are everywhere (and quite rightly so) with stats telling us what percentage of the pop'n require blood tranfusions and what of the pop'n actually give blood.

It just seems to me that so many groups are excluded from giving blood. My mother was a faithful doner until she was told a few years back that she couldn't give blood anymore because she had had a blood transfusion before 1989 or thereabouts.

Its just typical of our society that we have one group endlessly campaigning for more blood doners and simulatniously another group campiagning to be blood doners!



[hr]

[s]"You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"[/s]

[Dom]

Quoting Idealist from 16:02, 27th Nov 2006
the Blood Doner service

wahey the NHS is doing kebabs