I'm sure someone out there has
I'm sure someone out there has
but how do they know whether people are being truthful?
and what about this blood replacer stuff they use when there isn't blood to be used? - what is it?.
depends what they are being used for, there are crystalline inert volume expanders (does what it says on the tin and fills volume, doesn't do anything but prevent dry beating and air bubbles etc) and then there are oxygen therapeutics which perform the same role but also carry oxygen around the body. These can either be based on perfluorocarbons or haemoglobin (derived from a number of sources such as stripped blood units and compatible with c.95% of the western adult population)
aaarggghhhh my eyes, my eyes!
No, silly! You don't have anal sex in your eyes. That's ocular sex. mmmm.....ocular sex. I myself prefer aural sex.
kant git pregant in a ear!
(the last 6 posts in a row were all made by people who are 23. YAY for people who are 23...or at least not younger than 23!)
I'm not too sure what I think, I can kind of see the logic in both sides of the debate.
I think Seitan's view is rational although unusual, and I think some people have a hard time understanding a view that is different to thier own.
To me it does seem as though he just gave his opinion and then was continually questioned as though his view was 'wrong' rather than people just agreeing to differ.
To answer Seitan's question: Yes I do understand your view although I don't necessarily have the same view.
I am glad that Seitan aired his view and think it would be a shame if he was banned off the forum.
More importantly whether they are accurate, IMO. For instance, do you (everyone reading this that is) remember exactly what you ate for lunch three days ago? Oh you do? Well 99.9% of the population doesn't have the photographic memory that you do.-----but how do they know whether people are being truthful?
I would think in the need for efficiency and swiftness in blood collection, simple, short, broad yes/no questions on applications are quicker, simpler, less prone to applicant's memory failure, and most importantly overall safer. Imagine if the current application restriction question:
"If male, have you had sex with another man at least once since 1977?"
Were instead amended to:
"If male, have you had sex with another man at least once since 1977? If yes proceed to question B:
B. Were you ever a "bottom" at least once since 1977? (Applicants needing a more thorough explanation should ask their blood technician for clarification) If yes proceed to question 7:
7. Were any of the the penetrating penises used ever uncircumcised during a sex act at least once since 1977? [not all circumcisions are at birth so medically relevant although exceedingly rare] If yes proceed to question 7F:
[We just lost 80% of UK applicants since most are uncircumcised, BTW]
7F. Did you ever have sex without a condom at least once since 1977? If yes proceed to question XII:
XII. Did you ever have sex with a non-latex condom at least once since 1977? [That's asking for a perfect recollection period of two decades for some reading it, friends] If yes proceed to question 21-b, paragraph 9:
21-b, paragraph 9. Have you ever not had a daily 8 fluid ounce or greater serving of green tea from the approved brands list found in Appendix F, page 19, that was brewed for at least 4 minutes, using filtered water, through a non-metallic filter since 1977?
If yes........
If the population of potential blood donors being rejected by use of the simple current single question were greater than it is, about 5%, or if there was such a massive blood shortage that an additional 5% would be significant, then I could see how changing the current system makes sense, but until then the only reason I see to change it is to ensure that some people "don't get their feelings hurt because of rejection" * at the expense of making the entire system more costly, time consuming, more prone to human error, less accurate, and more dangerous.
"Even with the current restrictions, blood screening is imperfect. Of 12 million units of donated blood each year, 10 HIV infected units slip through, accounting for two to three cases of donor transmitted HIV infections a year. "
Source: BMJ.
*If potential donors who are rejected are in some way harmed psychologically, physically, financially, or otherwise, besides this, I am unaware of it. From my perspective the current system is designed for efficiency, speed, and accuracy only, nothing else.
our one is just a list of who can't give blood. The exclusion list is not as the BMJ claim c.5% it is far more given that there are c.20-30% of the male population that has had male homosexual penetrative intercourse also it does exclude women who in the last 12 months have had sex with a man who has had sex with a man in his life and that the requirement is not since 1977 it is just any time in your life. So they probably lost about 5-10% of the female population too. If a man has for example had sex 1 year ago they had a full sti screening three months later and it come up negative on all counts and has not had penetrative sex since there is absolutly no reason for that man not to give blood a more likely scenario is a man who had sex with a man four months ago and not since, is creened fully one month ago again there is no valid reason for that person not to give blood. swiftness of supply is needed mainly because of the incredible shortage of blood products.
Ideally it should be a matter of confidential consultation for these issues with the healthcare assistant working with you.
(the point about circumsision is that the top has a much reduced risk as a result of it not the bottom, his risk remains stable). If they were really worried they would impliment two channel screening, one for the exclusion list whereby every sample would be screened twice and the green channel for single screening. This would increase the amount of donations available and ensure that there is a quality supply of the blood products and ensure that the blood gets where it is needed fast. Appart from platelets which an be stored for no more than about a week blood products can be stored for very lengthy periods of time to allow for any additional screening you like and window periods to elapse. Again green channel can go to all products red channel could go to long term products (everything excluding platelets). As artificial blood products are also available as volume expanders and oxygen transportation it is possible to use minimal amounts of whole blood products and platelets to replace lost blood and reduced amounts in transfusion when combined with red blood cells and plasma which are both long shelf life blood products. Again there is no valid reason to EXCLUDE all male homosexuals.
I should point out that Italy and France have lifted their exclusions on active homosexuals donating blood. It is simply that they aren't willing to put in place the procedures required to ensure a safe supply of blood products.
I wrote "about 5%" rejection rate based on my own estimates, not BMJ's, that 10% of the population is said to be gay and 50% is said to be male. Not true? 50% of 10% is 5%. Would you please provide a link that supports your "20-30% male homosexual penetrative intercourse" claim. Thanks.
Not that it has anything to do with you, but how anyone would expect any significant percentage of women to know the true, complete, honest, sexual history of every male partner they've ever been with (or past 12 mos of) is beyond me. I would think just like there is a huge segment of bi/gay males that closet their sexuality from the public, there is also a huge segment (I'm thinking the vast majority, but thats just conjecture on my part) that hide their true history of male homosexual penetrative intercourse from their female partners {or the subject simply never comes up, why should it}.it does exclude women who in the last 12 months have had sex with a man who has had sex with a man in his life
This implies to me you seem to think that there are some that should be excluded. No? Which ones would you suggest and how would you go about quickly ascertained which ones at a donation center by questionnaire? That is, what would the list of questions be?there is no valid reason to EXCLUDE all male homosexuals
The BMJ link I provided in my previous post mentions 8% of the UK gay male population is HIV positive. 1 in 12. Would you suggest they should be allowed to give blood as well? Do you think 100% of them know they are HIV positive?
Thanks for your responses to these questions in advance. I know they are difficult, but I think they are valid.
as someone who lost a friend through HIV contracted via a blood transfusion (he was a Haemophiliac, and a virgin) i do feel concerned about this whole issue, but as i asked before, how would it ever be found out whether someone were lying when they answered the questions anyway?>
Sorry about your friend CW. In a perfect world we would have bullet proof blood test screening instead and questionnaires wouldn't be needed. Unfortunately even with the blood tests having a ~99.5% accuracy score, and applying the test 3 or more times to each sample (outrageously expensive I'd think), lots of bad blood will still filter through and hurt people. Screening questionnaires which eliminate people from statistically high risk categories are even less accurate, but at least using the two together gives us the best odds overall.
10% (6% by census but various polls and questionnaires show c.10% and the UK census is noted for its errors when compared with independent studies carried out in similar conditions to other countries) of the male population is openly gay while working with the LGF while working in the Village in manchester both our involvement and the studies across which we came suggested about the same again were not openly gay that is to say that we estimate a total of 20% of the male population. Further there was a significant number of male bisexuals who again account for a total (out and otherwise) of the male popultaion also during our counts we rounded down for both clarity and to loosely compensate for the location. This equates to c. 20 - 30% of the male population and therefore 10 - 15% of the entire population. As very few homosexual and bisexual men actually go to donation centres and mobile units knowing in advance that they are not supposed to their rejection rates do not represent any accurate figure.
The point about excluding women who have had sex in the last twelve months is made by the blood service and is on their current exclusion list. In theory, (yes it is conjecture on the part of myself and others) that bisexual portion of the male population will have had sex with half of the total corresponding female population i.e. 5%total female population.
That's right there are some who should be excluded in the same way that there are some heterosexuals who should be excluded, those who know themselves to be HIV (and other blood born infections) positive. The figure of 8% is based on the corresponding census figure of 6% of the population being homosexual as this is widely discredited splitting the difference as it were between the 6% figure and the 20% figure at 12% (for the purpose of simplicity) the more accurate figure would be 4% hiv+.
The sensible solution would be to use the exclusion list to create two separate channels for blood as already discussed, this would ensure that there was no compromise beyond the current situation and that there would be an increased supply of the vital blood products that the country needs. This would also (bringing this back to veganism here) allow a better chance of an ability for human red blood cells to be used for safety testing.
I would say that the current exclusion list should be amended to say that these people should discuss with the assistant etc etc. In Sweden every citizen has regular screening for STIs from an early age, this allows them a greater ability to control blood products. I am a believer in their system on this as it is one of the best weapons against STIs there is especially when combined with compulsory comprehensive sex education.
In the UK there were three known instances in the past year of blood product transmission of HIV. It is very, very sad indeed, we are however at the point where it is hard for hospitals and clinics to get the products they need when they need them, lives are about to be lost. Using the two channel system compromises safety no further than the present system and reduces the risk of people falsely declaring themselves not to be on the list and their blood products go through the appropriate channel which could actually reduce significantly the risks of blood product contamination. If the blood products are stored for the window period at which point the droner and product are retested then there is no real risk of transmission in that way. The current system means that only the blood is tested and tested once, this is not sufficient by any stretch of the imagination, it leads to false negatives, no window period allowance etc. With whole blood products, platelets unfortunately these can not be stored for longer than week but the addition of other products would ease pressures on supplies generally allowing for more thorough and two stage testing.
Three infections are too many, one is too many. But this system could actually reduce the infection rate and increase supply.
indeed yay for people who are 23
I go yay again!!
This thread has really made me want to give blood again rubbish!
I was just wondering what people think about the whole travelling thing. I have a passion for travelling (say as a gay man has a passion for men...maybe not quite but you get the analogy) What diseases are there that only manifest themselves after 6 months of being in the UK? If I get tested for these and didn't have them (for sure) I still don't think I'd feel resentful for not being able to give blood, I think it is better to be over cautious given the risks. Obviously it is not the same because its not permenant, though I feel like it is because I travel quite a bit. Anyway I'm not putting this forward as a wholly serious post but more of a pondering, a musing if you will!
I guess rabies, west nile and a few others could have long incubation periods.
I was on the list, but im not allowed to give blood because of my diabetes.
'he who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man'
they don't let diabetics give blood due to the meds used to control it
(at least that was the deal in Ireland when my mum stopped)
I have always wanted to give blood, but hesitated at my high school a year ago or so when they were there because when blood is withdrawn I faint about 70 - 90% of the time. Last time I was at the doctor's surprisingly when they withdrew blood I didn't faint even though it seemed to take impossibly long, but I am still hesitant, and plan to wait until sometime in the future, as I can only manage needles about once per year - besides I think someone mentioned that they won't let you if you take epilepsy / migraine medication. I wonder why that would be?
contamination of the blood supply is the answer to that one
On a more vegan note, the nurse today said that the brown goopy stuff (iodine + betadine) ARE NOT VEGAN. She said they are shellfish derived.
Also, why do they ask the question about gay contact since 1977? I understand that this is when HIV/AIDs arose, but last I checked, HIV does not have a 31 year incubation period. If you have undetectable HIV after 31 years.... *shakes head in disbelief*
what brown goopy stuff is that, Qaxt?
'The word gorilla was derived from the Greek word Gorillai (a "tribe of hairy women")'
The sterilizing stuff they put on you before they stick the needle in. You're in the UK, so maybe they do it differently there. It's the stuff they use before surgery as well. They do have alcohol available (at least where I was) for those who are allergic to iodine and/or shellfish.
I googled for a picture, and this is the best I could find.
http://media.collegepublisher.com/me...s/23q3qtf7.jpg
Do you see the yellowish brown stuff that's on his arm?
Alcohol works just as well and doesn't leave an unsightly yellow/brown stain like iodine solutions do. However, phlebotomists [blood taker technicians] who avoid alcohol argue that in their haste if they don't wait for the alcohol to evaporate the sting of the needle prick is heighten due to the unpleasent effect alcohol has on all open nerves/wounds including needle jabs.
A cursory search done by me fails to find evidence that iodine solutions used in medicine is derived from shell/fish, but then again I can't find what it is made from either!
As an aside: I've always wondered if executioners injecting their lethal concoctions first sterilize the arm with iodine/alcohol so as to "not induce any infections"! How stupid is that!
the UK blood service don't use iodine solution, they use a clear alcohol gel.
'The word gorilla was derived from the Greek word Gorillai (a "tribe of hairy women")'
Only ever had iodine applied once and that was when the stupid staff tore a huge chung of flesh off when they took the elastoplast off my arm where the drip was 'it doesn't hurt it's your imagination' hmm yeh right that's why I'm bleeding lol
i went to give blood and they said I didn't weigh enough... i wasn't aware of this regulation until now.
Bookmarks