(no subject)

[sebastienne]

"Have you had sex during the last 12 months with a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man?"

If the answer is yes, you can't give blood. No matter how many tests you have to say that you're clean. Even if that man always used a condom, with you, and with the other man.

"Have you ever received payment for sex?"

If the answer is yes, you can't give blood. Had unprotected sex for free? Go right ahead! Took money, and took precautions - even just once? Forget it!

I understand the exclusion of high-disease-risk groups, really, I do. It's statistics. It's why it's legal to offer different insurance premiums to people of a different gender or race. But, I'm wondering... what would be the morals of lying about one's sexual history in this situation? If you've had the tests, and know you're clean. Is it noble, or criminal?

Comments

[liriselei.livejournal.com]

lying is almost never something i'd advocate - but i do wonder if the NHS are seriously handicapping their blood donation efforts with overly restrictive and outdatedly moralistic (and, as you point out, misguided, if they're asking the above questions but none about unprotected sex in general?) rulings.

one would hope that blood was tested between extraction and use anyway...

i'd dearly like to give blood, but between tattoos, piercings and lifestyle choices have never really had the option.

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

That's the thing - the website doesn't mention even unprotected heterosexual or lesbian sex as a possible risk.

They're happy for you to give blood if it's been 6 months since your last body-mod, and the paid-for-sex example is just there to illustrate their idiocy... I'd only actually have to lie about sleeping with bi-boys, if I were going to go and give blood...

[vampire-kitten.livejournal.com]

Have you had sex during the last 12 months with a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man?

Wow, for the first time in AGES, I am <3 months to being able to donate blood.

(Well, apart from the anemia, but if I bulk up on iron tablets for a week I should be able to get past that one)

[vampire-kitten.livejournal.com]

the website doesn't mention even unprotected heterosexual or lesbian sex as a possible risk.

Well, first lesbian sex doesn't exist so how could anyone possibly catch anything from that!

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

no, it exists, i've seen it on the internet... but you're right, how could they ever catch anything from it, i mean, they hardly touch each other...

[stronglight.livejournal.com]

This certainly is somewhat silly in terms of most STIs as clearly lesbian sex can transmit STIs, but if they're thinking mainly of AIDS then lesbian sex is a likely to be a much reduced risk.

It's suspected that the HIV virus can't transport itself across epithelial (surface) tissue, and it seems quite likely that it only gets in during sexual contact if there are micro-abrasions to the epithelium. Vaginal epithelium is quite strong, and doesn't break too much - particularly if well lubricated - naturally or artificially! Hetero vaginal sex or lesbian sex with some form of penetration both run the risk of damaging the epithelium, but both are much less risky than anal sex as the rectal epithelium is only one layer thick and is so probably going to get broken a bit every time it is penetrated.

I don't know about the risk from oral sex - it may be able to cross gut epithelium, as obviously this is reasonably good at absorbing what it's given.

Of course - anal sex does not only occur between gay men. I can't remember if the questions include hetero anal sex? (Or lesbian anal sex? Does that even exist? I genuinely don't know if that's possible...)

Generally - sexual contact is actually not that likely to give you AIDS. This surprised me when I first found it out.



I'm sure you know all that anyway. Just did some tutes on microbicide HIV treatments last Hilary and found the detail really interesting so thought I'd share.

Anyhow - I actually commented to agree that it is very annoying. I've been wanting to give blood for years but from antibiotics, to tattoo, to bisexual ex boyfriend I've never been able to. Actually... *checks calendar* maybe I'm allowed to now. Should probably go donate quickly before the next tattoo... :-P

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

lesbian anal sex - definitely yes. though i'd imagine there's a lower chance of direct fluid exchange than when there's a penis involved, there's still fingers and strap-ons and rimming...

and, no, the survey doesn't mention any form of heterosexual sex. not even "unprotected anal sex with an HIV-positive heterosexual male". but then it does say you can't give blood if there's any chance you could be HIV positive, and I imagine most women would realise that the above was a risk factor...

have you got another tattoo planned? or are you just in the mood for another?

[stronglight.livejournal.com]

I've never actually seen a strap-on, and wondered if they might not be stiff enough. I'm clearly far too innocent... ;-)

Not mentioning het anal sex is beyond stupid. The risk is identical.

I've had another planned for ages but haven't got round to drawing it. I want a Celtic-ish wiggly sun in solid black with a crescent moon shape cut out of it in the middle. But haven't managed to draw it successfully so far.

Bloody mad Mad Cow Disease rule

[cheekybrit.livejournal.com]

I've also pondered this one, albeit in a slightly different context. I'm not allowed to donate blood here (in Canada) because I've spent a predetermined, unacceptable amount of time (I forget the precise cut-off point) in the UK.

Begging the question What does Britain do for Blood?

The Canadian Blood Services (and the country) is sellling itself way short. There are TONS of ex-pats here.

[queerpup.livejournal.com]

Eaten beef since 1980-something? Go ahead, give blood, even though there might be little BSE prions swimming around in there. Received a transfusion since 1990-something? Don't donate, because of a microscopic risk of BSE prions swimming around your bloodstream.

[foreverdirt.livejournal.com]

Is it noble, or criminal?

Both, I'd say, in as much as doing your duty is noble. But I have to agree with oxfordgirl - if you're going to lie about it, you have to be certain you're right.

[janetmweiss.livejournal.com]

*has to pipe in*

I know I'm the black sheep when it comes to this topic, and it's been a hot one at my school (the student society here organizes blood drives and during the last one, the volunteers were practically chased off campus by a radical queer group, so it's been getting a lot of discussion time here).

I know a lot of these statements are sweeping generalizations, and they're not perfect. But blood banks are huge organizations and they don't have time to scan every single person. And there have been scandals in the past, around the time when AIDS first appeared, so they have to tread a delicate balance between being careful and not excluding everyone. I don't think they chose their guidelines randomly. I'm sure a lot of thought went into it.

Science isn't politically correct and it's just a fact that, for instance, gay sex will more easily transmit AIDS than straight sex. But beyond that, gay sex will more easily transmit LOTS of things. And I think that's part of the reason for these prohibitions. Lots of men who donated blood in the 1970s must have thought they were clean because they'd been tested for a panoply of STDs...and they weren't, because they didn't have any clue they had AIDS. How could they? And so it got into the blood supply.

If and when (and it really is a question of when) another disease that can be transmitted by bodily fluids enters the population, it won't immediately be screened for in the supply or in donors and unfortunately, it's not going to decide to be karmatically correct and spread through...I don't know...fundamentalist Christians. It's going to hit the same populations. A gay man might indeed have been tested for AIDS, but how would he know to be tested for the next fun disease on the market? I think that's part of the reason these guidelines exist.

Is it slightly paranoid? Yeah. Is it imperfect? Yeah. But I guess I'd rather blood banks be slightly paranoid on my behalf without completely shutting down the supply train.

(P.S. I'll also say I'm a bit biased/blinded on this point, because my mom received a possibly-tainted donation back in the early 80s. She was actually called up to say, "We think you might have AIDS, kthanxbye." Although she lucked out, it's still a bit of an emotional issue for me, so you can take this with a grain of salt if you want.)

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

you are right, aren't you?

even though there's still part of me that wants to say "sod it, they need my blood, i know i'm clean..."

i know that you're right.

it's going to take me a while to decide for certain what i'm going to do, but thanks for taking the time to post this here and remind me what i'm risking.

[janetmweiss.livejournal.com]

*nods shyly* Of course, in the end, it's up to you. And it's not a simple issue at all. I know lots of people who've told less than the truth in this matter/straight out lied and nothing's happened to anybody yet. But...yeah. Just playin' devil's advocate a little :)

For my next feat, I shall prove why gay people are evil! Bwahhahah!

[countess-rezia.livejournal.com]

When I gave blood, I had to think about that question and whether, since they were explicitly including oral sex between men, "having sex with" a bi man also included oral. I decided no it didn't, but that was a decision I'm not sure I'd have been happy making if I didn't know I and he are disease free. So, I guess it amounts to the same thing. Tis tricky.

[mundi-gaudium.livejournal.com]

I hate to say it, but the Australian Red Cross is even worse:

"Have you, in the last twelve months, had sex with a man who you think might be gay or bisexual?"

Eejits.

[the-whybird.livejournal.com]

If you've had the tests, and know you're clean.

Even if you've had the tests, you don't /know/ you're clean. No medical test is 100% accurate.

In my opinion lying about one's sexual history in order to give blood could never be noble. If the restrictions on who can give blood are too stringent, then the fault lies with the doctors who drew them up. But just because a rule is wrong doesn't necessarily mean that cheating to get around it is right; the moral thing to do would be raising questions, raising awareness, getting action taken and getting the rule changed.

[anotherusedpage.livejournal.com]

Also, note they don't specify what kind of sex. Ach, finding this difficult to word, but there are plenty of things that I do with both girls and boys that I define as sex that have a pretty much 0 percent chance of anything even remotely resembling exchange of bodily fluids. I don't know if I can answer the question honestly, so I just ignore it, mostly. I have a relatively rare blood type, and I've never had full penetrative sex with a man who's had sex with a man, so *shrug* I'm reasonably sure that the NHS would class me as OK if I went into detail about my sex life.

If I was sure that my answer was 'yes I have had sex with a man who's had sex with a man', I might feel more strongly the either lying or not lying was the correct option. As it is, I feel faintly dishonest either way round, and I'm going to keep giving blood.


Does that make sense?