Anthony Nolan Trust

[mycatis]

I recently applied to join the register and was shocked to find on the back page of the leaflet,
"Do not register as a blood stem donor or consent to further matching tests if: (amongst other thing)
You are a man who has had sex with another man, even if "safe sex" using a condom or other protection."

So it's ok if you have been having unprotected sex with anyone and everyone, so long as you are straight! Cause if you have had a homosexual relationship, you must have something dodgy!!

[noxlumos]

I think it's because with anal sex there is a greater risk of blood born diseases being passed, due to tearing of delicate tissue. However that ignores the fact that lots of heterosexual couples have anal sex, so it does seem a bit naieve.

[4getmenot]

I know I find it amazing. My friend is gay and would love to give blood and cant. I give blood and they do the tests i.e Hep B, Hep C, HIV etc, surely they can do these on Homosexuals. If people need blood then why cant Homosexuals save a life.

[morg_monster]

After being infected with HIV, the body takes on average 3 months to develop antibodies, which is what is detected by a 'normal' HIV test, so technically you cannot be 100% sure that someone doesn't have HIV. The test done with blood screening can pick up the infection quicker, but still not until about 2 weeks after infection. Of course, that counts for hetero- as well as homosexual people. However, they can't ban everyone who has ever had any sex from donating blood, but homosexual men are one of the major risk groups for HIV and the blood services do have a duty to protect recipients as much as they can. The NBS also prohibits people (male or female) who have had sex in the past 12 months with someone from an African nation, as they are another major risk group.

A lot of gay groups think that the ban on blood donation is discriminatory, and I personally think they have a point. Surely a person who wants to give blood is likely to be the decent honest kind of person who would not lie about recent sexual encounters which could put the recipient at risk. I think they should just have a 12 month ban after 'risky sex', as they do for bisexual women who have had sex with a gay man.

(continued)

[morg_monster]

However - there is a vital difference between normal blood donation and bone marrow donation. With blood, it is screened after donation and thus known to be safe, and goes on to be stored and then donated. With bone marrow donation, the bone marrow is usually extracted from the donor at the same time it is given to the patient. The necessary tests are run on the donor to check they are a good match for the recipient. Once they are sure they are compatible, the sick patient undergoes chemo or radiotherapy which completely destroys their immune system, so that their body will accept the donated marrow. This takes a few days and leaves the patient seriously susceptible to infections. Then both donor and recipient are prepped for their respective operations and the donation goes ahead. If there is some doubt in this 'window' of a few days that the donor is still perfectly suitable and hasn't contracted any diseases, then the recipient is left with no immune system, and also no donor - they are in serious trouble then.
I agree it seems unfair but the situation here I think lends itself to more caution. I am sure that if a gay man was a match for a relative, this would be permitted!

[Octavius]

From the FAQ section of their website....

Sexuality in itself does not preclude you from joining the Register. However, The ANT has a responsibility to ensure individuals joining the register are aware of the importance of excluding themselves from the register if they know they could be at risk of transmitting a blood borne disease to a patient.

It is vital that they minimise the risks of transferring disease from donor to patient and there are strict regulations relating to donor selection resulting in a number of groups of people having to be excluded from donation, either temporarily or permanently. This includes individuals who have participated in an activity that may have put them at higher risk than usual of acquiring such an infection. Specific health population studies have identified a number of behaviours that increase risk and one of these is men who have sex with men.

Whilst all donors provide a sample of blood for testing for transmissible diseases before the donation, this sample has to be tested prior to the patient undergoing the necessary conditioning treatment and this creates an unavoidable "window" between the donor's blood sample being tested and the actual donation - a time during which a donor could become infected with a blood borne disease; repeating the blood test at the time of donation would be too late as the patient would, by then be fully conditioned, leaving him/her with no immune system and potentially totally vulnerable.

This would also apply to people who inject non-prescriptive drugs and provide sex in return for money or drugs.

I am not certain though, how, heterosexual relationships differ greatly in this respect and as mentioned above.

[Goodsoulette]

I think if it stops even one person contracting hiv through a transfusion then i am sure it is worth it. Lets not take any risks ey!

There are a long list of thing s that stop you giving blood which probably rules out most of the population a lot of the time.

[Englishbird]

All the gay men I know are far more promiscuous and engage in far more ... shall we say 'unusual' ;o).... sexual practices than my straight friends.

It doesn't make them bad people, and I'm not saying that all gay men are like it, but would argue that the majority are.

So statistically, they have to enforce some control. As mentioned it applies to travellers and tattoo's as well, so I don't think it's part of any great gay conspiracy.