Whos a Blood Doner

[countryfeedback87]

Therefore arguing it can only be down to a PC stance to have what you want as a gay to override the rights and welfare of anyone else.

This is not what I am arguing about. My blood could potentially save a life, not risk anyone's welfare. I'm passionate about it as my ex was passionate about giving blood and was stopped from doing so purely because he was in a gay relationship, despite his blood being exactly the same as it was. How many lives could he have saved?

[moonwitch]

I am not allowed to give blood because I had a blood transfusion back in the 80's.

Makes me wonder wonder reason they have for this rule

[astral276]

I refer back to the Give Blood site which gives those who are not acceptable to donate and the reasons why. I much prefer to accept that they are better placed to know what is safe than you.

Of course, you could lie and donate anyway and to hell with everyone else. Or they could take it and just throw it in the bin without telling you.

[astral276]

I am not allowed to give blood because I had a blood transfusion back in the 80's.

Makes me wonder wonder reason they have for this rule

From the Give Blood site again:

If you have had or think you have had a blood transfusion (or blood products) anytime since 1st January 1980 sadly, we can no longer accept your blood.

This rule has been introduced as a purely precautionary measure. It aims to reduce the possible risk of variant CJD (vCJD) being passed from donor to patient. However, just like our other rules regarding who can and who can't give, things can change. As new scientific information comes to light we will review the situation. This could mean either continuing this ruling or asking people to come back. We just don't know yet.

As with all the restrictions, if there comes a time where the benefits (e.g. to meet a lack of supply) outweighs the possible risk then it may be one worth taking.

[moonwitch]

From the Give Blood site again:



As with all the restrictions, if there comes a time where the benefits (e.g. to meet a lack of supply) outweighs the possible risk then it may be one worth taking.

Oh right...the added info wasn't there when I first read the original new restriction. No reason was given for the restriction then,,,the site just said I couldn't donate so I left the site and haven't been back since

[countryfeedback87]

I refer back to the Give Blood site which gives those who are not acceptable to donate and the reasons why. I much prefer to accept that they are better placed to know what is safe than you.

I'm not disputing that, it's that these policies are outdated and bigoted. Do you prefer to accept the status quo rather than challenge for what is right? There is absolutely no difference in my blood than the next guy. I find it offensive that I am deemed "a risk" purely because of my sexuality, when mine and many other people's blood could be saving lives RIGHT NOW, especially when someone who has repeated unprotected sex night after night CAN donate, surely this is more detrimental to the welfare of others.

Like you say though, I could just lie on the form, but it doesn't feel right that you have to lie in order to help people.

The campaign is backed by a number of MP's, Doctor's and other notable figures

[astral276]

Afraid your post just proves that this is all about you and not about helping others. That you would even consider lying and possibly put anyone at risk is beyond belief.

I've got no time for you and will adding you to my blocked list as of this post.

[sidthelamp]

I'm not disputing that, it's that these policies are outdated and bigoted. Do you prefer to accept the status quo rather than challenge for what is right? There is absolutely no difference in my blood than the next guy. I find it offensive that I am deemed "a risk" purely because of my sexuality, when mine and many other people's blood could be saving lives RIGHT NOW, especially when someone who has repeated unprotected sex night after night CAN donate, surely this is more detrimental to the welfare of others.

Like you say though, I could just lie on the form, but it doesn't feel right that you have to lie in order to help people.

The campaign is backed by a number of MP's, Doctor's and other notable figures

would not do you or any one else any good lying because it would be a simple matter to trace a blood borne disease ,which would then not strengthen your argument

[sidthelamp]

Afraid your post just proves that this is all about you and not about helping others. That you would even consider lying and possibly put anyone at risk is beyond belief.

I've got no time for you and will adding you to my blocked list as of this post.

another one oh dear

[westlondoncarparts]

Blood transfusions should not be given unless all donated blood is tested. I presume this is what happens now?

If the blood tests can identify issues present such as AIDS virus or hepatitis or STDs, etc., then it is difficult to see why there should be a blanket ban on gay donors.

However, if the blood tests cannot come up with the necessary identification, then the next safest thing to do would be to rely upon statistical averages to identify sources of blood which carry higher than acceptable risks.

Here in London it is estimated that around 1 in 8 gay men are infected with AIDS so there is obviously a need in this part of the world for the tests to be able to do what is necessary or for the risk to be identified and managed.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...w-9869378.html

The Public Health England 2014 report on STDs shows clearly that STDs are a problem across society and not just in the gay community so the risks outside of the gay community also need to be assessed and managed.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...TI_NCSP_v6.pdf