Newsflash: bisexuals/pansexuals exist!

[kaberett]

Today the UK's lifetime ban on blood donation by men who've had sex with men (MSM) was lifted. This change is reflected in the online donor health check questionnaire: good.

Me, however: I've just got off the phone with the Blood Service on my own account, because what they haven't done is edit the donor health check to reflect the reality that some women have sex with MSM, and a situation where a woman can't donate blood because she's having sex with a man who can is clearly preposterous. (Yes, I am using binary language here. No, it doesn't make me happy. No, the blood service doesn't really believe in trans* people in any useful sense full stop, insofar as I've discussed the issue with them.)

Luckily they agree that the situation I describe above is clearly preposterous, and have explained that it's not actually what they mean. Whether or not they'll change the website remains to be seen, but in the meantime... I can donate blood again!

Comments

[naath]

So their position is...

*a man who has recently had sex with a man can't give blood
*a woman who has recently had sex with a man who can't give blood per ^^ can't give blood
*but after 12 months of not having sex with men said man can give blood again
*and said woman may also

Or does said woman have to wait an additional 12 months? I know that if she doesn't have sex with said man for 12 months she may. (I'm assuming the woman here has sex with no-one else only to make it easier to write down).

[kaberett]

Um, good question - I didn't double-check that, on account of it's less relevant to my situation. My *guess* would be that if a woman has sex with an ineligible man, she must wait 12 months after last sex with him-while-ineligible before becoming eligible again (incubation period arguments) - I'm not sure this actually makes sense at all from the point of view of transmission vectors, but apparently this kind of situation didn't come anywhere near occurring to them :-s

[askygoneonfire]

I still remain mystified as to why the blood service seem to think it is acceptable for a woman with multiple-partners who has unprotected anal sex with a man to give blood, but not a man who has sex with his male partner within in an exclusive partnership. I also don't understand why men who have oral sex with other men are explicitly excluded but apparently a woman could be giving a blow job whilst donating and that wouldn't be a problem.

It's an important step forward, and I was also excited to see it come into force today, but your comments, and the things I just double checked for changes now, have left me terribly sad because this would have been a great time to change that too. *sigh*

[askygoneonfire]

*a man who has *protected* sex with his male partner

[wildeabandon]

The argument is that having to answer detailed questions about sexual practices will put off more people than the extra donors who would be permitted by ascertaining that they were actually low risk by asking those questions. I'm not sure how convinced I am by that argument, but it's what I've heard.

[gerald_duck]

They could do simple questions leading to either "great, you can give blood" or "Sorry, you might be unable to give blood. To know for certain, we would need to ask more detailed questions about your sexual activities. If you are keen to donate and willing to answer such questions (in strictest confidence) …"

So I'm not convinced, either. /-8

[damerell]

Also because people underestimate how vastly higher risk a group MSM are; last I checked, the incidence of HIV was 20 times larger than that of the population at large (let alone that proportion of the population at large who aren't MSM, IV drug users, etc).

That fellow who only has one male partner is having sex with someone who on average is high risk and whose actual sexual activity is not known to him.

Of course one can come up with extreme edge cases but it's worth asking if it's a useful use of the Blood Service's resources to identify the few people who fall into those categories. The purpose of blood donation isn't to make donors feel smug and as such if someone can't donate that isn't actually doing them any harm.

[kaberett]

Ow. No, blood donation isn't about making the donors feel smug, and it doesn't make me feel smug, but it really actually hurts to see Save a Life - donate blood! posters, and appeals for my blood type, and ad campaigns about "are you one of the 96% relying on one of the 4%?", when I would love to donate (in order to be helpful, not to feel "smug"!) and it's a pretty good bet that my blood is safe but they won't have it.

[damerell]

Well, that was somewhat harshly put, but really, in my view, donors can't be discriminated against because it's not done for their benefit.

I get a twinge when I see those posters too, but really, what are they going to say? "Save a Life - donate blood! Unless you've done x/y/z/a/b/c, of course."

It's a pretty good bet yours is. It's a pretty good bet mine is. But (at least in my case) it's not nearly as good a bet as I might think because I might underestimate the degree to which the one disqualifying person I've had sex with is a high risk, enormously higher than the population at large - both because I (well, a naive me) doesn't realise what the incidence of HIV amongst MSM is and because I don't really take into account the fact that what I know about the gentleman in question's sexual history is not necessarily true [1]; and the Blood Service, thankfully, doesn't have to take good bets to get enough blood... provided it guilt-trips people with posters often enough.

That (largely hypothetical) woman who sleeps with a different straight guy every night actually has to get through quite a lot of them before she represents the same medium risk as me.

[1] "But," you say, "that is just as true of a woman having straight sex." Yes. But one thing I know that she doesn't is that the bloke I slept with sleeps with blokes.

[ceb]

That's exciting, I might be undisqualified again...

[kaberett]

I have now found out that the MSM in question needs also to be donating blood. According to the blood service. In order that their blood can be screened. Because "it was a decade since his last sexual contact of any kind with a man" isn't good enough, and nor are negative STD tests from NHS sources. Which is a pity if the MSM in question is not eligible to donate blood because of medication they're on. :-(

I have written to Julian Huppert about this because as far as I can tell this is a much higher standard of paranoia than most other donors are held to.

[ceb]

But shurely if they're screening, they can screen your blood too... this makes no sense, Blood Service.