I'm now on #dapride!

After reading the .PDF download from [link] , I have been move to do something As the late Anita Roddick said, "Do something. Do anything. Just do something." I'm still not shore what to do, but I have found something wrong.

In the UK you can not give blood as a gay man, with out lying about your sexuality, as on the Nation Blood Services web-site under "Who can give Blood" [link] on question twelve after the one about HIV/AIDS, it asks "Are you a man who has had oral or anal sex with another (even if you use a condom)? Now with out lying and I gather on declarations like this one, I would be breaking the law? Now I'm not a doctor so I not know anything about this but still how can it effect the blood. So when I has some surgery recently, I had to have some blood and now that I'm better I would like to give some of my rare blood group back to the Nation.


Gay Blood by *tiredbees on deviantART

~KarasuChan666 Apr 23, 2008
It's unfortunate that people of alternate sexualities can't give blood for whatever reason. They act like straights don't get AIDS too. All they need to do is look at the percentages and they see that in the U.S. there are more straight people with AIDS than gays....

*tiredbees Apr 23, 2008
thank you for this comment, is it true that GAYs are not aloud to give blood in the U.S. too.

~KarasuChan666 Apr 25, 2008
Oh i know that it's true. I am bisexual and i give blood all the time. I know that it is probably illegal and all but they don't need to know that. I like donating blood, and knowing that i have saved a few lives. I wish that the gay/bi/trans community would fight for their rights more than they do but we can only do so much. Someday we'll have equal rights.

~Rain-yatsu Aug 10, 2008
what!? there are more straight people with AIDS than gay people?! fuck you straight people who made this law and those who agree with this law!!

--
We live our lives every day and its all we know how to do so why not make every day worth living


AinuPrincess Jul 21, 2009
And you know the sad thing? Even though in the US gays have AIDS the most, world wide, its heterosexuals that are most likely to be infected.


=The-Truth-In-The-Lie Dec 23, 2009
Hello. I hope you dont mind. I liked your picture so I linked it to my article. Gay Blood Ban - For or Against?
Here is a link [link] in case you want to read it.

If you don’t want your picture on it then tell me and I’ll take it down

--
Join us! [link] for those who love the chilling allure of art (see what i did?)

join us! [link] and for those of us who enjoy rainbow power join this almighty glbt pride group!


~hieithefallen Dec 24, 2009
People seem to think that gay men contract and spread HIV/AIDS more than straight people do and even though it isn't true, people believe it sadly

I'm not sure I understand why people think that HIV and AIDS is strictly a homosexual disease. It has nothing to do with sexuality but the person you sleep with, gay or straight.

I wish it wasn't true, because it's completely unfair and if a gay man's blood saved my life, I wouldn't care that he was gay. I would care that he was a good enough person to help someone else in need.

--
Adommy <3Team Carlisle/Jasper. YeahHiei lover~~EternalChameleon Jan 24, 2010
You know, unless you are asked point blank if you are gay or straight, then you can easily fall under the "don't ask, don't tell" and donate blood all you want. They test the blood before it goes in anyway, I am sure just to make sure noone lied.

This is kinda a cool way to attract attention to the issue, though!
Reply

=Avalik 1 day ago
It's MSM's who aren't allowed to donate blood, so it includes straight people, bisexuals and victims of sexual abuse and rape as well.

--
90 people get the swine flu and everyone wants to wear a mask. A million people have AIDS and no one wants to wear a condom.

~Little-deamon-child 1 day ago
Thats really silly, i know what its like to be around prejuduced people but
not allowing gays to give blood because they "all have aids" is bloody stupid.

Its bad enough i had a b*&*@ fest at my great aunt cause she was under the
impression that being a gay man adopting a baby girl was a good thing because
they would be less likely to touch her.

These prejudices are wrong people!!!

--
I'll stop being a bitch
When you stop being an idiot !

99.9% of the Girls in America would pass out if Miley Cyrus disappeared. Post this to your siggy if you were the 0.01% Happily poking your new hostage with a spork


*icyhugs 1 day ago
It's the same crap in Hong Kong. The Red Cross forbidden gays to donate blood while u hear their cry for blood donation everyday on the radio.


~ShoRena 1 day ago
it depends on the person i think. i hate how people always accuse gay people of having aids, when just as many straight people have it too. and nice pic by the way. it bring up a good question

--
You only see one side of the moon.


~buggy6565 1 day ago
Its the same way here in the US. We had blood drives at my school and a friend of mine was turned away for being gay. It absolutely disgusts me that people can be that stereotypical!

--
↨♥↨ With Love from Buggy-Sama ↨♥↨


~cayra 1 day ago
Same here in Germany. Stupid fuckers.

--
dream...


~KidenStormsoarer 22 hours ago
same thing in the us, they claim that gays have a higher risk of std's. i refuse to give blood because they ask that. it's a shame, too, i'm type O positive, which is the most common type, therefore the most needed on average. i tried complaining to the red cross when they told me that, too, but it got swept under the rug.

--
Just a big, lovable silver dragon.

Proud member of #dapride

A Chinese gay man who tried to sue after being barred from donating blood has had his lawsuit rejected by a court.

Wang Zizheng hoped to sue the Beijing Red Cross centre for discrimination as China bars gay men and lesbians from donating blood.

According to AFP, the state-run newspaper Beijing Times reported that Mr Wang was informed of the decision yesterday by a court official, who did not give a reason for the rejection.

He decided to sue after visiting the centre in June to give blood, where he declared he was gay on a form.

He was told that under Chinese health regulations, he could not donate blood because of his sexual orientation.

China's 1998 ban means anyone who states they are gay on a blood donation form is automatically disqualified from donating. However, there is no penalty for lying on the forms.

While many countries ban gay men from donating blood due to fears of HIV infection, lesbians have an extremely low risk of being infected.

(read more via Pink News)

A Chinese man is suing a Beijing Red Cross centre for refusing to accept his blood donation because he is gay.

According to AFP, Wang Zizheng went to the centre in June to give blood and declared he was gay on a form.

He was told that under Chinese health regulations, he could not donate blood because of his sexual orientation.

Many countries ban gay and bisexual men from donating blood because of the risk of HIV.

Gay campaigners argue that would-be donors should be accepted on an individual basis which focuses on risky behaviour, rather than sexual orientation.

China's 1998 ban means anyone who states they are gay or lesbian on a blood donation form is automatically disqualified from donating. However, the is no penalty for lying on the forms.

Mr Wang has filed a case against the centre for discrimination, China Daily reported.

He was quoted as saying "for thousands of homosexuals in China, someone has to stand out" and added that he was seeking an apology from the centre.

He added: "I agree with having restrictions on homosexuals; it is just they have to be scientific."

Mr Wang is waiting for his case to be accepted by a court.

Last July, a lesbian group set up a campaign to be allowed to donate blood.

(read more on Pink News)


Gay Blood by *tiredbees on deviantART

A Tasmanian gay rights activist has questioned why the Australian Red Cross' policy on blood donation is harsher on gay men than it is on people with tattoos and piercings.

The organisation bans men from donating blood within 12 months of having gay sex but people who have had tattoos, piercings and acupuncture may donate six months after their procedures.

The six-month limit is a new rule which comes into force next month.

Gay activist Rodney Croome accused Red Cross of discrimination.

He told ABC:

"The fact the Red Cross is willing to review its current donor guidelines for people who have piercings and acupuncture and tattoos, but not review guidelines when it comes to gay blood donation, really does suggest the Red Cross is, at best, engaged in some fairly arbitrary decision-making, or at worst, is just downright homophobic."

The UK and America both have lifetime bans on gay and bisexual men donating blood.

(read more)

(via Pink News)

Lifting America's ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood could provide an extra 219,000 pints a year, a report says.

According to the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law, this increase would mean a of 1.4 per cent rise in the nation's blood supply.

The report also estimates that organ donations could increase by 2.9 per cent annually, meaning around 900 additional transplants could take place each year.

(read more)

(via Pink News)

Home secretary and equalities minister Theresa May has released a message in support of International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO).

Mrs May, who was appointed to the roles last week in the coalition government, has faced some criticism of her voting record on gay issues.

Today, she promised the new government would tackle homophobic bullying and pressure countries with poor human rights records to improve their treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people.

(read more)

(via Pink News)

A parliamentary candidate for UKIP has claimed that his party would scrap "politically correct" laws allowing discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Garry Cockrill, the candidate for Southend West, told a hustings on Wednesday that Christians were being discriminated against. He was speaking at a hustings organised by a local church, where he attacked equality legislation.

A UKIP spokesman said this afternoon that Mr Cockrill's views were not in line with the party's stance on gay issues.

But he could not clarify whether the party would allow bed and breakfast owners to discriminate against gay couples and a policy document says UKIP would scrap hate speech legislation which is "cynical social engineering".

According to local website Councilbust.com, which has video footage of the event, Mr Cockrill said: “The Equality Act, the Sexual Orientation Act 2007, have made it possible for lifestyle choices to be placed above religious faith.

“You’ll find that the three major parties are unable to make any ground with this. The Conservatives, as you have seen, have pilloried Chris Grayling for defending the B&B’s right to decide who sleeps under their roof.

“David Cameron is supporting the enforcement of civil partnerships in the church. Mr Clegg wants homosexuality taught as normal and harmless in faith schools, and we all know what the Labour party is doing.

“UKIP have a different policy. We would look at these politically correct laws that prevent people from acting according to their faith."

“UKIP would get rid of these laws. Christians are being discriminated against."

Mr Cockrill also implied that families headed by a gay couple were inadequate compared to the "nuclear family".

He said: “The role of fathers and mothers has been sidelined. Equality laws are actually working against family.

“I would like to see a greater support for families. Let’s support the nuclear family.

"The statistics are overwhelming that children do better in families with one of one father, one mother and children. You just can’t get past that.”

Rachel Charman, who runs the Councilbust website, was present at the meeting.

She said: "As a lesbian and a parent, I found Garry Cockrill's comments concerning. I find it hard to believe that in this day in age, a parliamentary candidate will publicly claim that laws created to protect LGBT people from discrimination are wrong.

"I also found Mr Cockrill's implication that heterosexual parents are better than single or same-sex parents upsetting and inaccurate.

"I can categorically say that had I been planning to vote UKIP before the hustings, I definitely would not now."

A UKIP spokesman told PinkNews.co.uk that although the party does not favour political correctness, it believes in equal rights "across the board".

However, he could not say whether the party would allow bed and breakfast owners the right to bar gay couples from their homes.

He said: "We're not a fan of political correctness when it challenges common sense but there is nothing in our manifesto against equality laws."

"We would abolish the Human Rights Act as it's been said time and time again that it puts the rights of criminals above the rights of victims. But we do firmly believe in the rights of individuals.

"We wouldn't reverse civil partnerships or anything like that but we do propose pulling out of the EU, so we would not be subject to European equality laws."

He added: "[Mr Cockrill's] comments are not in line with the party. We definitely believe in freedom of speech but that goes both ways. This was his personal view which he is entitled to but it is not in line with UKIP policy.

"We believe in equal rights across the board regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation."

The spokesman added that Mr Cockrill could be sent a copy of UKIP policy to clarify the party's position.

Mr Cockrill told PinkNews.co.uk that he believed the party's policy is to repeal hate speech legislation where laws are felt to be "cynical social engineering". This is contained within a UKIP policy document but is not in the main manifesto.

He said: "I'm happy to stand by my faith and beliefs. I don't discriminate against anyone but I don't believe the rights of groups should be forced on others.

(read more)

(via Pink News)

They want us to vote for them, but do they vote for us in Parliament?

Click above to shows the amount of support we have received from each party on important LGBT issues. Please support http://mygayvote.co.uk by visiting their website or following them on twitter @mygayvote

(via @tweetminster)

The Australian Red Cross has announced it will review its ban on gay men donating blood.

Currently, gay men cannot donate blood if they have had sex with another man in the last 12 months.

The organisation has been lobbied by gay and HIV groups to reconsider its policy on the last few years.

Red Cross Australia spokesperson Nick McGowan told MCV that the review would take place.

He said: “We think it’s an opportune time to review this policy”.

“There’s a pre-eminent concern … the safety of Australia’s blood supply. That’s the overarching objective of supplying Australian’s with safe blood."

Several years ago, would-be gay donor Michael Cain brought an anti-discrimination tribunal against the blood service.

He argued it was discriminatory to bar gays from donating blood and that the policy should instead bar anyone having unsafe sex.

The ban was upheld last May but Mr Cain is working with the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group on continuing his campaign.

In March, 17 Democrat senators and one independent called to end America's ban on gay men donating blood.

The 1983 rule is "outdated, medically and scientifically unsound", they argued in a letter to the Food and Drug Administration

Gay men also face a lifetime blood donation ban in the UK. A review of the policy is to conclude this year.

(via Pink News)

Gay Blood by *tiredbees on deviantART

Artist's Comments
After reading the .PDF download from [link] , I have been move to do something As the late Anita Roddick said, "Do something. Do anything. Just do something." I'm still not shore what to do, but I have found something wrong.

In the UK you can not give blood as a gay man, with out lying about your sexuality, as on the Nation Blood Services web-site under "Who can give Blood" [link] on question twelve after the one about HIV/AIDS, it asks "Are you a man who has had oral or anal sex with another (even if you use a condom)? Now with out lying and I gather on declarations like this one, I would be breaking the law? Now I'm not a doctor so I not know anything about this but still how can it effect the blood. So when I has some surgery recently, I had to have some blood and now that I'm better I would like to give some of my rare blood group back to the Nation.

Comments
~KarasuChan666 Apr 23, 2008, 3:56:01 AM
It's unfortunate that people of alternate sexualities can't give blood for whatever reason. They act like straights don't get AIDS too. All they need to do is look at the percentages and they see that in the U.S. there are more straight people with AIDS than gays....
Reply

*tiredbees Apr 23, 2008, 6:47:12 AM
thank you for this comment, is it true that GAYs are not aloud to give blood in the U.S. too.

~KarasuChan666 Apr 25, 2008, 5:17:42 AM
Oh i know that it's true. I am bisexual and i give blood all the time. I know that it is probably illegal and all but they don't need to know that. I like donating blood, and knowing that i have saved a few lives. I wish that the gay/bi/trans community would fight for their rights more than they do but we can only do so much. Someday we'll have equal rights.

~Rain-yatsu Aug 10, 2008, 10:21:42 PM
what!? there are more straight people with AIDS than gay people?! fuck you straight people who made this law and those who agree with this law!!

~AinuPrincess Jul 21, 2009, 9:18:16 AM
And you know the sad thing? Even though in the US gays have AIDS the most, world wide, its heterosexuals that are most likely to be infected.

~The-Truth-In-The-Lie 20 hours 58 minutes ago
Hello. I hope you dont mind. I liked your picture so I linked it to my article. Gay Blood Ban - For or Against?
Here is a link [link] in case you want to read it.

If you don’t want your picture on it then tell me and I’ll take it down


~hieithefallen 14 hours 10 minutes ago
People seem to think that gay men contract and spread HIV/AIDS more than straight people do and even though it isn't true, people believe it sadly

I'm not sure I understand why people think that HIV and AIDS is strictly a homosexual disease. It has nothing to do with sexuality but the person you sleep with, gay or straight.

I wish it wasn't true, because it's completely unfair and if a gay man's blood saved my life, I wouldn't care that he was gay. I would care that he was a good enough person to help someone else in need.

Gay men could be subject to five-year ban on blood donation
By Jessica Geen on Pink News

A public meeting yesterday discussed the possibility of a five-year deferral for gay and bisexual men donating blood, rather than a lifetime ban.

The meeting, held by the independent Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs, was part of a new review on the long list of people excluded for life due to the danger of blood-borne diseases between transmitted.

Currently, this includes men who have ever had sex with another man, people who have injected drugs, prostitutes and those who have ever had syphilis, hepatitis B or hepatitis C.

Temporary exclusions include those who have visited certain parts of the world, or have had sex with someone from certain parts of the world.

Yesterday's meeting heard that gay men who have not had sex with another man in the last five years could become eligible to donate blood.

Other suggestions included banning only those who have had anal sex, rather than oral sex, and lifting the ban on women who have had sex with a gay or bisexual man.

The meeting began with testimonies from experts.

Dr Richard Tedder, a microbiologist from University College London, argued that viruses were "not politically correct" and pointed to windows of time before HIV could be detected in blood samples. He also cited issues with testing blood donations for HIV, saying that not all of the blood in one donation can be tested.

Professor Deirdre Kelly, a liver specialist from Birmingham Children's Hospital, spoke of the need for people to donate blood and said she was not satisfied that certain deferral and exclusion policies were consistent with estimated risk.

The audience also heard from a heart transplant patient who argued that lifting the lifetime ban on gay men would "de-demonise HIV and AIDS" and would create a larger pool of blood donors.

The floor was then opened up for discussion.

Yusef Azad, from the National AIDS Trust, said he believed population-based deterrents were justified but added: "If you look at five-year deferrals [for gay men] with fourth-generation HIV testing, there is no significant risk."

Nick Partridge, the chief executive of Terrence Higgins Trust, said research has found that the vast majority – 93 per cent – of gay men have complied with the current ban on donating blood.

But he added: "I'm struggling to calculate how many gay men haven't had sex in five, ten years. What realistic difference would it make?"

Dr Tedder said he did not think gay men who hadn't had sex for five years would make a significant difference to safety.

Professor Kelly raised the issue of heterosexual men who may have once had a gay experience and said it was problematic that they, and their wives and girlfriends, were barred from donating blood.

Deborah Jack, of NAT, asked whether men who have only had oral sex with another man posed a significant risk.

A group of around 40 students, along with Peter Tatchell, had been protesting against the ban outside the conference venue in Greycoat Street. Several attended the meeting along with National Union of Students LGBT officer Daf Adley.

Adley suggested that the blood service was missing out on donations from thousands of healthy men and also argued that including protected oral sex as a reason for banning some gay men sent out the wrong message, as young gay men were being informed that protected oral sex was safe.

He called for gay men to be screened for blood donation according to their individual behaviour, rather than basing specifications on whole groups.

However, a number of experts present refuted this, saying the lengthy questioning procedure this would involve was simply not practical.

Matthew Beaver, a local councillor, introduced himself to the audience as a gay man and suggested that those in the closet posed a far greater risk to public safety than men who were openly and confidently gay. This was dismissed by Nick Partridge, who said he doubted this was happening.

Stonewall previously supported the lifetime ban on gay men but recently changed its position. Terrence Higgins Trust maintains the lifetime ban is necessary.

Spokesman Derek Munn said: "It is difficult for us to have different views from Terrence Higgins Trust but we reached our current position from the input of our members.

"To have men who have sex with men as a single undefinable category is like using a blunt instrument."

The last review, in January 2007, recommended that the policy of banning gay and bisexual men from donating blood should be continued.

A study commissioned by the Health Protection Agency is currently underway to find out more about compliance with rules. It will be published next year.

A Department of Health spokesman said that the findings from the current review will be announced in 2010.

Public meeting to be held today on gay blood ban
By Jessica Geen on Pink News

A public consultation is to be held today on the ban on gay men donating blood.

The latest review, in January 2007, recommended that the policy of banning gay and bisexual men from donating blood should be continued.

It means that any man who has ever had sex with another man is banned for life from donating, along with women who have had sex with them. Other people who are banned from donating include those who have sex for money or drugs.

Today's meeting will be held by the independent Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs, which advises the government on issues of blood safety.

Although sexual health charity Terrence Higgins Trust has supported the ban, others such as gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell and the National AIDS Trust believe it is discriminatory.

He said: "This review of the blanket, lifetime ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood is long overdue. It has been ordered by the National Blood Service in response to criticisms and protests by a range of organisations, including the LGBT human rights group OutRage!, the National AIDS Trust and the National Union of Students."

Tatchell added: "The lifetime ban is backed by the government, which claims to oppose homophobic discrimination. It is based on the stereotyped, irrational, bigoted and unscientific assumption that any man who has had oral or anal sex with another man – even just once 40 years ago with a condom – is high risk for HIV. This is nonsense.

"The truth is that most gay and bisexual men do not have HIV and will never have HIV. Their blood is safe."

The National Union of Students is holding a protest outside the meeting, which is to be held at the Royal Horticultural Halls Conference Centre in Greycoat Street at 1pm.

It is thought that one in 25 UK gay men have HIV, with this figure rising to one in ten in London and one in eight in Brighton.

Since 1985, there have only been two cases of patients contracting HIV through a blood transfusion.

Canadian gay man admits lying to donate blood by Jessica Geen on Pink News


Kyle Freeman admitted in court this week that he had lied about his sexual history in order to undergo the procedure, which he believes is the "ultimate gift" a person can give.

Canadian Blood Services imposes a lifetime ban on men donating blood if they have ever had sex with another man.

Freeman, 36, argued that he wasn't a risky donor because he had regular HIV tests and did not have unprotected anal sex unless with a long-term partner who had also been tested.

However, tests revealed his blood was actually infected with the sexually-transmitted disease syphilis.

Freeman was sued by Canadian Blood Services for negligent misrepresentation but is now counter-suing, claiming that the ban is scientifically unjustified and unconstitutional.

According to the Edmonton Sun, he told the Ontario court yesterday: "My father was a blood donor – we were always taught that's the ultimate way to help people. It's the ultimate gift you can give someone.

"I felt my risk was non-existent," he said. "I don't believe I participated in high-risk activities, because I used a condom and got tested."

"I wanted the blood to be used. I knew that if I would have answered yes I would have been excluded from having my blood used. Once they found out I was in a same-sex relationship I would not be able to donate blood anymore."

Canadian Blood Services argues that the ban is necessary because men who have sex with men are simply more likely to be infected with HIV.

Although blood is screened for HIV and other diseases before being given to patients, blood ban advocates argue that as tests cannot pick up the infection in the first three months since transmission, those who have had sex with another man must be screened out.

Many countries, including the UK, bar gay men from giving blood.

Statement of Exclusion

I don't know why they don't just exclude everybody who's ever had sex at all...oh, wait - that'd probably mean no donors whatsoever!

Mum X

This clearly doesn’t stem from a scientific standpoint. If they claim to be worried about disease, then this implies they don’t bother actually testing the blood they do get and just rely on peoples’ word. Presumably if you look like a nice person, you must have clean blood.

P.

P*** *******

I applaud the NBS for being so open about their decision, whether we agree with it or not. They have access to the facts, we do not. The only person I knew who died of HIV / AIDS was gay, one out of about the 5-10 homosexual people I know. I know that a sample of one in ten is hardly statistically relevant, however the NBS have a much larger database.

I don't think they are being homophobic. They assess the risks across all sections of society and select the lowest risk options that will yeald the blood supply that they need. That is sensible given the limited resources they have. It is all about risk management*.

As an aside they don't want mine or your mum's blood either for different reasons.

(*) The same applies in the car insurance industry. Cars of a certain type are automatically barred from drivers under a certain age (usually 25) because statistics say that young people are more likely to have accidents in fast cars. There is no assessment of the individual drivers concerned.

Dad.

Does the NBS actually need more donors? If not, then its all moot anyway. I'm assuming 'more blood is a good thing' anyway ...

It looks to me like the NBS have been backed into a PR corner by militants kicking up a fuss, and are shoring up a socially unpalatable stance (to some) with questionable science. They're not going to 'spin' their way out of this, I suspect. The trouble for them is that said militants have won change elsewhere on the basis of scientific evidence, so this rather looks as though they have their fingers in their ears and are hoping it all goes away.

The present approach excludes perfectly healthy donors, while including a vast number of unhealthy donors. Diseases of all kinds exist across the whole population, and yet this blood is potentially accepted into the system. If the concern is indeed around disease, they should be screening for it. That is the only reliable way to manage the risk, and if they aren't already screening each and every donation for disease then they are playing Russian roulette with patient health.

The only logical reason I can think of for excluding donors from even entering the system is to save time (and cost) at the point of collection. It seems sensible that the base criteria should be that donors are disease free. If the donor's opinion about the state of their own health based on exposure to risk factors (needles, unprotected sex, whatever) is good enough to self-screen for this purpose (as it apparently has always been), then that applies equally to the whole population. To do otherwise implies that gay men have poor judgement when compared to their heterosexual counterparts (and it is this part I personally find insulting). Safe sex is safe sex, whoever's putting whatever wherever. And since even a healthy test result from last week isn't cast-iron guarantee of health at the time of donation, all samples will still need screening, wherever they come from.

The way the insurance industry carries on is hardly an example of common sense: their motivation is purely financial. That lot would have us all live in bubble wrap just so they don't have to pay out. Statistics only describe a limited portion of the reality we live in, but the accountants keep hoping the rest of us don't notice that.

I don't think the position of the NBS owes much to logic and science, but (I suspect) stems from the traditional presence of religion within the caring professions, and the psychological significance of having the blood of in your system. Whatever the motivation, I think the NBS are on a losing wicket with this one: other blood services have changed (or been made to change) their position, since it has been scientifically proven to the satisfaction of courts of law (if you count Australia) that there is insignificant additional risk involved in accepting gay blood over straight.

Having said that, I'm very keen that PC pressure groups don't automatically win victories in these situations, so I would welcome this whole issue being taken through our own courts.

P.


P*** ********

No probs with me for blogging !

All blood is screened before use but they pool most of the donations & then test samples from that pool (for cost & logistics reasons - some of the tests take some days to give a result). If any test on any pool is positive for undesirable contaminants of whatever type they have to ditch the whole pool. For some very rare blood types individual donations are tested. All tests done are chosen on a statistically based risk assessment.

I have to say that i wasn't too chuffed having 3 pints of American blood back in 1999 given that they pay donors there so you are more likely to get people lying about their state of health & i did have a pyrogenic response to it (slightly high temperature). But until about 3 years ago I was still allowed to donate blood myself BECAUSE it was non-European blood with allegedly lower risk of CJD (human "mad cow" disease). Incidentally I once saw some statistics saying that the risk of catching CJD was less than that of being electrocuted by an alarm clock even taking into account non-mains operated and clockwork ones ...

"Lies, damned lies & statistics" (quote of unknown origin dating from at least 1795) but we couldn't operate today without using them!

Best regards,

Mum
**** *********

OK by me.

To add to this, P*** - I think you answered your own question....

|| The only logical reason I can think of for excluding donors from even entering the system is to save time (and cost) at the point of collection.

I think this is what is happening. No national organisation is going to be 'phobic about any section of society because it is at best morally wrong and at worst illegal. To quote a training mantra - Good; Fast; Cheap - pick two. They have fast and cheap at the expense of 'good'. As a 'universal blood' person I can live with them saying I can't give blood, but if I had a blood group that was rare then I would, and I would expect the NBS to, question the rules. After all, I may need mine back again sometime.

I agree that there should be some sort of review, however it needs to go hand in hand with a public education programme. Contrary to some beliefs homosexuality is not a blood desease or something that you can catch or be cured from (why would you want to?). Equally not many homosexuals are 'camp' or 'wear sensible shoes' (of those I know). There is a media stereotype that needs to be addressed, then maybe the NBS will be shamed into reviewing their policies.

Dad

Their risk assessment should not ignore the most significant diseases, since these are not exclusive to gay men and may be present in any given sample (/pool of samples). If their tests are not rigorous enough to screen for these, then this issue is far more worrying to me.

If their tests are sufficiently comprehensive, then self-screening based on an individuals own risk-assessment is at best a saving in cost/time and at worst means the service misses out on some healthy blood. It is not definitive, but could significantly reduce the proportion of unhealthy donations.

Self screening does not require a faculty of judgement that is the exclusive preserve of the heterosexual portion of society.

Simply put, it looks like the NBS doesn’t trust gays, but they do trust everyone else to make that judgement. Personally, I don’t: in my view their tests should eliminate the need for trust in their donors in the first place, with self-screening purely as a ‘nice to have’ to ease the burden as much as possible.

P.

P*** *********

While on the subject of pooled donations and testing, why is it that all people who contribute to a pool that fails tests aren't advised to seek medical tests? They may be now, but last time I asked this there appeared to be no feedback to the donors concerned.

K.

THT rejects Tatchell criticism and reveals work with blood service By Tony Grew

A leading sexual health charity has said it is working with the National Blood Service on the current ban on men who have had sex with men donating blood.

Terrence Higgins Trust has been accused of colluding with "stereotyped and prejudiced assumptions" that bar gay men from giving blood by campaigner Peter Tatchell.

The NBS claims that it targets sexual behaviour and not sexual orientation, but there is a lifetime ban on donations from men who have had sex with men.

There is increasing pressure for the ban to be lifted in favour of more sophisticated models.

Mr Tatchell said that THT and gay men's health charity GMFA are "dependant on funding and goodwill from establishment bodies, they have joined the establishment.

"Unwilling to challenge a blanket ban that is irrational and ignorant, they collude with the NBS's stereotyped and prejudiced assumptions about gay and bisexual men."

Lisa Power, head of policy for THT, told PinkNews.co.uk:

"Perhaps Peter should stop hurling pointless insults and start considering why an organisation that always makes decisions on evidence rather than wishful thinking is willing to consider a policy which appears discriminatory.

"THT's view is that while we could certainly do with a comprehensive review of the UK restrictions on blood donations (which affect many more people besides gay men) in the light of recent advances in knowledge, we also need to understand that some groups of people are at more overall risk of HIV transmission than others.

"Until we have the technology and the funds to be able to ensure that every donation is a safe donation, some forms of group restrictions are inevitable. The question is not whether restrictions should exist but whether we have the right ones in place.

"THT is working with the National Blood Service to ask those questions, based on evidence and we will abide by the results. Any regulations - and any changes to them - need to be based on facts, not political rhetoric."

Ms Power revealed that THT will be meeting with the NBS in January "to move this examination of the evidence forward."

Peter Tatchell attacks Terrence Higgins Trust over gay blood ban By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk

A prominent gay rights campaigner has said that sexual health charities are colluding with "stereotyped and prejudiced assumptions" that bar gay men from giving blood.

The National Blood Service claims that it targets sexual behaviour and not sexual orientation, but there is a lifetime ban on donations from men who have had sex with men.

There is increasing pressure for the ban to be lifted in favour of more sophisticated models.

In an article on The Guardian newspaper's website, Peter Tatchell set out the case for an end to the ban.

"We all now carry the mark of the HIV 'Anti-Christ,'" he wrote.

"Every single same-sexer in Britain is categorised by the NBS as a potential purveyor of death and destruction.

"We are all reckless liars, who can never be trusted to behave with sexual responsibility or to tell the truth about our sexual history and HIV risk factors.

"Every last one of us – including gay doctors, priests and HIV educators – are prohibited from giving blood, now and forever."

Mr Tatchell, who is a parliamentary candidate for the Green party, also attacked gay charities for siding with the NBS.

"Oddly, this unscientific, irrational policy is backed by gay-led HIV charities in the UK, such as the Terrence Higgins Trust and Gay Men Fighting Aids (GMFA).

"Now dependant on funding and goodwill from establishment bodies, they have joined the establishment.

"Unwilling to challenge a blanket ban that is irrational and ignorant, they collude with the NBS's stereotyped and prejudiced assumptions about gay and bisexual men.

"Scientists, doctors, HIV organisations and gay rights campaigners in many other countries take a different view.

"They say that a total ban on all blood donations from men who have sex with men lacks scientific credibility and medical justification. They are right.

"The NBS gay blood ban is based on the ill-informed, homophobic presumption that all gay and bisexual men are 'high risk' for HIV, regardless of their individual sexual behaviour.

"This is nonsense. Most gay men do not have HIV and will never have HIV."

Terrence Higgins Trust, a leading HIV and sexual health charity that provides services across England, Wales and Scotland, backs the National Blood Service.

"We support the current attitude of the NBS but we do think they could go a lot further to explain themselves," Lisa Power, THT’s head of policy, told PinkNews.co.uk in May.

"I don’t blame people who don’t understand the ban and who think it is all about prejudice.

"99 times out of 100 when someone is told they can't do something because they are gay, it’s prejudice.

"What the blood service does is something they have been afraid to admit in the past - they play the odds.

"They look at how much blood they need and they look at how many risks they have to take to get the blood, and they do not take any more risks than that.

"And although the risk is relatively low, there is a risk there.

"When we talk to people about this, they are surprised to find out that nobody from England can give blood in America.

"The odds that they play in America mean they do not need to take English blood and there is a tiny, and not dissimilar risk, of BSE from English blood.

"It wouldn’t matter if you were a vegetarian, they will not take the risk.

"For a vegetarian to be refused the chance to give blood in America is pretty much the same as a gay man would feel.

"We support the blood service so long as they regularly review the evidence."

Last month the National AIDS Trust accused the NBS of not doing enough to challenge the ban on gay donations.

"NAT is not convinced by the justification put forward for the current lifetime ban and we are campaigning for the National Blood Service to review it," said chief executive Deborah Jack.

"The test for HIV used by the blood service is not the most reliable test currently available.

"Furthermore, the only two options considered as an alternative to the current lifetime ban are no restrictions at all and a one year ban – but there are alternatives such as the New Zealand five-year ban.

"A lifetime ban becomes increasingly indefensible when, for example, there would be next to no one alive with undiagnosed HIV fifteen years after they were infected.

"The National Blood Service has said it is willingly to review the ban if there is any new evidence. But it should be doing more.

"Instead of an essentially passive approach it should be proactive in questioning this outdated policy and looking for an alternative to a blanket ban.”

The NBS said in a statement:

"While safer sex through the use of condoms, does reduce the transmission of infections, it cannot eliminate the risk altogether. The reason for this exclusion rests on specific sexual behaviour rather than the sexuality of the person wishing to donate.

"There is, therefore, no exclusion of gay men who have never had sex with a man, nor of women who have sex with women.

"The policy would only be changed on the basis of clear evidence that patients would not be put at jeopardy. In addition, scientific advances in virus testing and inactivation are monitored."

Similar blanket bans have been abolished in South Africa, Spain and Italy.

The Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal has finished its hearings into the ban on men who have sex with men donating blood and will now consider the thousands of pages of evidence.

Michael Cain, who was refused the opportunity to donate blood in 2004 when he revealed to Red Cross staff he was in a sexual relationship with another man, brought the case.

His counsel, Peter Tree SC, said in his closing submission that the Red Cross has exaggerated the HIV risk associated with male-to-male sex.

"The Red Cross has played on fear of infection, fear of the unknown, and fear of harm, none of which are borne out by the available evidence," he said.

Mr Cain said he believes he has had a fair and just hearing from the tribunal.

"Sometimes I feared the avalanche of material presented by the Red Cross would obscure the basic message that HIV is passed on by unsafe sex not gay sex, but I think we have been able to expose the irrelevance of most of this material and keep the focus where it belongs, on the need for more safe blood," he said.

The tribunal is not expected to issue a ruling for at least six months.

The Scottish Parliament is considering a petition calling for an end to a similar ban, which is in place across the UK.

The National Blood Service claims it is not discriminating against gay men, as a gay man who has never had sex can still donate.

However, a man who has ever had a sexual encounter with another man is banned for life.

Gay donations would mean more safe blood, tribunal told
By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk

An anti-discrimination tribunal in Australia has been told that lifting a ban on gay men giving blood would increase the amount of safe transfusions available.

The case was initiated by would-be gay donor Michael Cain, who was barred from giving blood on the grounds of his sexuality.

The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal in Hobart heard closing submissions last week.

Mr Cain's lawyer, Peter Tree SC, told the tribunal that there are gay men who have a much lower risk of HIV than many heterosexuals and that the blood from these men could save lives if it was accepted

Mr Tree also accused the Red Cross of exaggerating the HIV risk associated with gay sex to "extreme" levels.

"The Red Cross has assisted in perpetuating the stereotype that gay sex is risky and unhealthy", he said.

Mr Tree went on to say that the Red Cross has known since 2001 that there is no medical evidence to support a ban on men engaging in a range of sexual activities with other men, including oral sex.

"This alone should compel the tribunal to find that the Red Cross policy is unjustifiable."

The lawyer for the Red Cross Blood Service, Jeremy Ruskin SC, also began his closing submission.

Addressing Mr Tree's claim that blood donation is an altruistic act from which gay men should not be excluded, Mr Ruskin told the tribunal it is more altruistic not to give blood when there are such risks associated with all gay sex.

In August the tribunal heard from the primary Red Cross witness, Dr Brenton Wylie, a member of the Red Cross management committee.

During Dr Wylie's cross examination, Mr Tree SC presented documents containing the advice of the Red Cross' chief epidemiological advisor Dr John Kaldor.

According to these documents, Dr Kaldor advised the Red Cross in 2001:

"Based on current epidemiological evidence, there is no justification for excluding donors on the basis of oral sex.

"It would seem prudent to defer donors who have had male anal sex without a condom…for a donor who has had anal sex only with a condom, the risk is far lower."

Mr Cain went on to suggest that, judging by the evidence from the documents, the Red Cross also ignored a request by the Australian Medical Association to "obtain views on high risk heterosexual relationships" in relation to blood donation.

Mr Cain then pointed out that Dr Wylie had previously claimed that gay and bisexual men were thousands of times more likely to have HIV than straight people, despite the fact that only 0.5% of Tasmanian gay and bisexual men are HIV-positive.

Closing submissions are expected to conclude on Monday November 17th.

Scottish blood service defends ban on gay donations
By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk

The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service has said that the rise in gay men becoming infected with the HIV virus meant the ban on blood donations from that group was justified.

In a letter to the Scottish Parliament's petitions committee, the service claimed that some gay men are giving blood despite the ban and 86% of all new HIV infections occurring last year in Scotland were in gay men.

MSPs are considering a petition from gay rights activists calling on the Scottish Government to review existing guidelines and risk assessment procedures to allow healthy gay and bisexual men to donate blood.

At present any man who has ever had sexual contact with another man, regardless of whether or not condoms were used, is barred from donating blood for life.

In April the committee agreed to seek responses to the issues raised in the petition from the Scottish Government, the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, Joint United Kingdom Blood Transfusion Services, the Equality Network, Scotland's national LGBT campaigns group, and others.

The Scottish blood service maintains that it is not a question of being gay or bisexual but the risk involved.

It does not recognise safe sex practices among men who have sex with men (MSM) as safe, despite the rapidly rising HIV infections among heterosexuals.

UK's National Blood Service (NBS) also bars men who have had sex with other men from donating blood, even if they used a condom.

A statement on their website says: "It is specific behaviours, rather than being gay, which places gay men at increased risk of HIV infection.

"Safer sex will keep most gay men free from infection, however research shows that allowing gay men as a group to donate blood would increase the risk of HIV infected blood entering the blood supply.

"Abolishing the rule for gay men would increase the risk of HIV infected donations entering the blood supply by about five times, and changing the rule to allow gay men to donate one year after they last had sex with another man would increase the risk by 60 per cent."

According to Section 28 of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations "it is not unlawful for a blood service to refuse to accept a donation of a person's blood where that refusal is determined by an assessment of risk to the public based on - clinical, epidemiological data obtained from a source on which it was reasonable to rely."

The Equality Network said they "are not asking for a blood amnesty, we are simply asking the Parliament to urge the Government to have an open and honest discussion with the LGBT community, let's talk about this issue, let's face it head on.

"Some people are high risk, the same as some people are not.

"Questions which concentrate on the behaviours and the risk of those behaviours will save lives. Let's not allow anyone else to suffer due to this ignorance."

France, Italy and Spain are among EU nations that have removed blanket bans and brought in new rules that focus on risky sexual behaviour.

Scottish Parliament will consider gay blood ban
By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk

The LGBT Network has submitted a detailed case to the Scottish Parliament calling for the removal of the ban on men who have sex with men from donating blood.

On Tuesday the Public Petitions Committee at Hollyrood will reconsider a petition calling on the Scottish Government to review existing guidelines and risk assessment procedures to allow healthy gay and bisexual men to donate blood.

In April the Committee agreed to seek responses to the issues raised in the petition from the Scottish Government, the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, Joint United Kingdom Blood Transfusion Services and National Institute of Biological Standards and Control Professional Advisory Committee, Advisory Committee for Safety and Blood, Tissues and Organs, Bloodban, Terrence Higgins Trust and the Equality Network.

The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service (SNBTS) maintains that it is not a question of being gay or bisexual but the risk involved.

It does not recognise safe sex practices among men who have sex with men (MSM) as safe, despite the rapidly rising HIV infections among heterosexuals.

UK's National Blood Service (NBS) also bars men who have had sex with other men from donating blood, even if they used a condom.

A statement on their website says: "It is specific behaviours, rather than being gay, which places gay men at increased risk of HIV infection.

"Safer sex will keep most gay men free from infection, however research shows that allowing gay men as a group to donate blood would increase the risk of HIV infected blood entering the blood supply.

"Abolishing the rule for gay men would increase the risk of HIV infected donations entering the blood supply by about five times, and changing the rule to allow gay men to donate one year after they last had sex with another man would increase the risk by 60 per cent."

According to Section 28 of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations "it is not unlawful for a blood service to refuse to accept a donation of a person's blood where that refusal is determined by an assessment of risk to the public based on - clinical, epidemiological data obtained from a source on which it was reasonable to rely."

The Equality Network submission to the Scottish Parliament said:

"A man, who has had unprotected sex with a prostitute can give blood after 12 months. A man who has unprotected sex with an intravenous drug user can give blood after 12 months.

"A man who has had unprotected sex abroad in a country which has high rates of HIV can give blood after 12 months.

"A man who has had unprotected sex with a woman he knew to be HIV positive can give blood after 12 months.

"A man who has unprotected sex with a different woman every night of the week, who may herself, have been one, or all of the above, can give blood tomorrow.

"However, a man who has only ever had protected sex with one other man is excluded from donating indefinitely.

"The SNBTS do not allow MSM to give blood because they do not believe that protected gay sex prevents HIV transmission.

"This goes against all scientific, medical, statistical and historical evidence about the virus and the epidemic."

The LGBT Network said they "are not asking for a blood amnesty, we are simply asking the Parliament to urge the Government to have an open and honest discussion with the LGBT community, let's talk about this issue, let's face it head on.

"Some people are high risk, the same as some people are not.

"Questions which concentrate on the behaviours and the risk of those behaviours will save lives. Let's not allow anyone else to suffer due to this ignorance."

France, Italy and Spain are among EU nations that have removed blanket bans and brought in new rules that focus on risky sexual behaviour.

Even if the Scottish Parliament acts the ban will continue in England and Wales.

HIV/AIDS expert compares Australian gay blood ban to racism
By Rachel Charman on Pink News

The director of Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria has likened the Australian Red Cross ban on gay blood donations to racist discrimination.

Associate Professor Anne Mitchell gave evidence today at the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal taken by gay would-be donor Michael Cain.

Mr. Cain seeks to have the Australian Red Cross' ban on gay men donating blood lifted.

Electronics technician Michael Cain, 21, of West Launceston, was rejected as a donor in October 2004, after replying "yes" in the Red Cross questionnaire to whether he had had gay sex in the past 12 months.

Speaking at the tribunal today, Professor Mitchell stated that high-risk sexual activity was not as widespread as some studies claim.

She said: 'The most compelling evidence of all for the effectiveness of safe sex is the simple fact that…when safe sex was taken on by men who have sex with men the escalation in infection rate was pegged back.

'This made it immediately clear that the risk of HIV infection was not associated with male to male sex per se, rather it was associated with unsafe male to male sex.'

Professor Mitchell went on to criticise studies cited by the Red Cross, which they claim justify the ban on gay blood donation.

She said: 'Many of the samples in studies cited by the Red Cross are very small, recruited from men at high risk, and explicitly exclude men who practise safe sex in monogamous relationships.

'They are not representative of all men who have sex with men.'

Professor Mitchell went on to suggest that, instead of a blanket ban on gay donors, a set of questions to be used by the Red Cross could be drawn up in order to identify high-risk sexual activity.

She went on to state her belief that the ban was similar to racist discrimination:

'The deferral of men who have sex with men is based on who they are rather than what they have recently done and can be likened to deferral on the grounds of being Jewish or Indigenous.'

Professor Mitchell's comments echo those made by the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group (TGLRG) last week.

TGLRG spokesperson, Rodney Croome, said:

'The Red Cross cited statistics about rates of HIV and other infections in the gay community which were misleading.

'The infections in question arise from unsafe sex, not gay sex, and because almost all these infections are increasing dramatically in other groups which aren't banned from blood donation.

'It was particularly offensive and unprofessional for the Red Cross to assert that "monogamy is a myth" in regard to men who have sex with men.'

The tribunal continues tomorrow with evidence to be taken from two bio-ethicists, Dr Scott Halpern and Dr Leslie Cannold.

Now I have the physical evidence that I need to prove that the NHS' national blood service is Homophobic.

Gay Blood by *tiredbees on deviantART

Artist's Comments

After reading the .PDF download from [link] , I have been move to do something As the late Anita Roddick said, "Do something. Do anything. Just do something." I'm still not shore what to do, but I have found something wrong.

In the UK you can not give blood as a gay man, with out lying about your sexuality, as on the Nation Blood Services web-site under "Who can give Blood" [link] on question twelve after the one about HIV/AIDS, it asks "Are you a man who has had oral or anal sex with another (even if you use a condom)? Now with out lying and I gather on declarations like this one, I would be breaking the law? Now I'm not a doctor so I not know anything about this but still how can it effect the blood. So when I has some surgery recently, I had to have some blood and now that I'm better I would like to give some of my rare blood group back to the Nation.

Devious Comments

It's unfortunate that people of alternate sexualities can't give blood for whatever reason. They act like straights don't get AIDS too. All they need to do is look at the percentages and they see that in the U.S. there are more straight people with AIDS than gays....
~KarasuChan666

thank you for this comment, is it true that GAYs are not aloud to give blood in the U.S. too.
*tiredbees

~Rain-yatsu