Blood sacrifice: banning gay blood in Northern Ireland

From the Belfast Telegraph article above;

'UUP health spokesman John McCallister was “bewildered” by the Health Minister’s decision. He said: “We cannot turn willing blood donors away because of out-dated and irrational prejudice.”'

Some people remember that, when AIDS first emerged as a public health issue, the notorious bath-houses of San Francisco and other major US cities were shut down permanently. Was that "out-dated and irrational prejudice"?

I'd like to know whether a monogamous gay couple can donate blood? And if not, why not? Surely they're LESS likely to be infected than a promiscuous heterosexual person...

Alright then Will, but this is from the 'Terrence Higgins Trust' briefing, no less;

"It is unhelpful to play down the devastating impact that HIV has had on gay communities in the UK and the very great, and disproportionate, HIV vulnerability that gay men still face."

As a result of Edwin Poots' non-ideologically driven decision, blood transfusions in Northern Ireland are going to be just a little bit safer than blood transfusions elsewhere in the UK.

"The review noted that process improvements and automation have significantly reduced the chance of errors in blood testing such that the modelled risk of a HIV infectious donation being released into the blood supply is 1 per 4.4 million donations."

Apparently, there is a 1 in 3,000 chance that a bit of space junk falling to Earth tonight will hit someone. Would Poots be in favour of banning space satellites?

"An outdated and irrational prejudice" for making a decision based on a low level of probability?

Well if that's the case, then I assume that any viewpoint based on a belief that highly improbable events can occur is "outdated and irrational prejudice". I wonder what worldview fits the bill?

Answers on a postcard.

Some commentators argue that his decision reflects an "outdated and irrational prejudice" rather than a concern for public safety.

Except that this works both ways. It would be equally irrational to insist on removing the ban for reasons other than a concern for public safety.

But who is arguing for maintaining the ban for reasons other than public health? If Poots argument can be dismissed as 'outdated and irrational prejudice' then so too can the arguments to contrary be dismissed as irrational dogma. In either case it begs the public health question, and it seems to me that this is the only issue of any real importance here.

I don't particularly care who gives blood as long as it's safe for the recipient.

I was a blood donor myself once. I personallly wouldn't like 2 receive blood from a gay person. I think the ban should remain.

I am just wondering if it is ethical for a minister with a history of anti-gay bias (use of Lisburn Council premises for gay civil partnerships for example) should make such important decisions affecting gays, should he not have, because of 'his deeply held views', delegated the decision to a deputy or someone else.

He says that his decision is not based on his bias, but who will believe him? I don't.

But in a wider context, are any of us safe in receiving blood from anyone, For is the screening process was adequate, there would not need to be a ban on anyone.

a prostitute is banned for life but a man or woman having sex with the prostitute has no ban on them, no restriction at all. you couldn't make it up..

A man or woman who identifies as heterosexual has sex with a person of any sex who is HIV positive cannot give blood for 12 months from that activity to allow the screening to pick up any infection.

In England, Scotland and Wales :

A man or woman who identifies as homosexual who has sex with a person of the same sex (regardless of HIV status) cannot donate blood for 12 months from that activity to allow the screening to pick up any possible infection.

Northern Ireland:

A man or woman who identifies as homosexual has sex with a person of the same sex (Regardless of HIV status) is banned for life because there is a minute possibility that the screening does not pick up any infection which is not there.

basically the rules are all over the place but Poots has used that to increase the discriminatory nature of the rules for N. Ireland. In addition he will still allow blood to come from England (where he has no say in policy) even though it carries the same risk as he has said is unacceptable for NI and he wonders why people should think his anti-gay bias has influenced him.

Tullycarnetbertie,

Why would you not want blood from a gay person - would that even be from a gay person who has never had sex with anyone or is it all gay people ?


Just trying to work out if it is a public health issue or your biblically inspired homophobia.

If Poots believes the risk is too great to accept blood donations from homosexuals why is he doing nothing to stop blood donations from homosexuals coming to Northern Ireland from elsewhere in the United Kingdom? He's acting like a tin-poot dictator determined to see that his harmful and irrational prejudices prevail!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Ok I'll try and tone it down :P This ban just reinforces stigma towards a sector of the population. There are plenty of healthy & health-aware gay people who aren't the 'skanks' their heterosexual counterparts are.

How does this ban affect gay men who don't identify as gay men. I know of people who bible bash one minute then go on gay dating websites 'to hook up' the next. When a political class compound an issue & reinforce a prejudice, less people are willing to identify themselves as 'gay'.

On another point this doesn't address other factors. Such as a wife who goes to give blood but doesn't realise her husband is sleeping around and passed on an STD, or those sexually abused by an adult early in life who unknowingly carry an STD into adulthood.

The most sensible way forward would be for EVERYONE to get a health MOT each
year. Then health professionals have clear figures to deal with & if there's a certain blood type running low, they can contact people to come forward & donate.
If N.I runs low on a certain blood type, it will come from another part of the UK. Sod's Law being what it is, a racist homophobe in N.I needing blood will probably need it from it from the mainland

Just another reason why the North should never self-govern. If N.I had been under direct rule post-war & subject to the same civil rights laws as the rest of the UK it would've been alot safer for its people. The last thing this place needs is career politicians. They're just not good enough

could I just put a scenario into the mix, a man had sex with his wife, and she has not been faithful to him, she has become infected with the virus within the past couple of days from sex with her lover, the virus is as yet undetectable in her blood, and they both trot down to give blood like they always do. thats ok, thats allowed.

another scenario, man and wife, and they both give blood on a regular basis, but the man is a closeted bisexual ( or deviant hetersexual ) who cannot declare it on the forms as they fill out the forms together. what then?

The faq from the Terrence Higgins Trust linked in the OP does a decent job of answering some of the questions asked in comments.

Ryan @ post 15 I concur, we do not need career politicians

also we have way to many career Christians floating round, (the plank-in-the-eye brigade as I call them from Matthew 7:3 (NIV) Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?)

You will be getting tired off me, but I have just considered on the subject of blood, I have been washed in the blood of my Saviour, and there is nothing in Matthew Mark Luke or John to indicate to me, His sexual orientation. Probably was Asexual but that is just an opinion.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Can't help wondering why Will - or anyone else on the blog - hasn't mentioned the other countries who have the kind of prohibitions Mr Poots is proposing?

Are those countries also guilty of 'biblically inspired homophobia'?

Or is it just a case of 'another chance to put the boot into the evangelical'?

Yes, let's compare & contrast with Nigeria instead of the rest of the United Kingdom... Although many in Westminster would probably like to see it drift towards the equator- it's more likely to find it's aptitude & fit in- rather than being part of Europe

This is just touching the surface. It will be interesting to hear the contribution from the new Chief Commissioner for Human Rights. As the blood issue is a health issue I expect he or she will be an authority on this matter.

To date the BBC have relied on the Terrence Higgins Trust, whilst it is a respectable Charity, campaigning on sexual health matters, it is hardly a balanced input on its own. Where is input from the Chief Medical officer? Where is the lead consultant on Public Health? Where is the input from the American Association of Blood Banks?.....As Nolan would say……silence!

It is interesting to note that, amongst other criteria, the American blood service won’t take donations from men who have has sex with men from 1997. They also won’t take any one who has spent more than 3 months in the UK from 1980 through 1996, or indeed anyone who has received a blood transfusion in the UK or France from 1980 to the present. Is that racist, or do the Americans use a higher standard of risk avoidance than we do? Has anyone asked why?

From 1 November 2010, people with Myalgic Encephalitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME) were permanently deferred from giving blood in the UK. The blood donor service says, ‘Donor guidelines for people with ME/CFS have been changed to protect their safety as they are at risk of relapsing after blood donation. However, there is no evidence that a donation from an ME/CFS donor could harm a patient in any way.’ (From NHBT web site) For those with the condition and who wish to donate why can’t they? Where was William's programme or the Nolan show? Why some groups but not others?

The blood donar service also tells us that in England and North Wales over 2 Million donations of blood from 1.4 Million donors were made. If you read the SaBTO report (on the NHS web site) you will read that ‘in the UK between 2003 and 2008, the probability of an infectious HIV blood donation not being detected by current testing methods was estimated as 1 in 4 Million donations, however the true value could be as low as 1 in 8.3 million or up to 1 in 2.2 million donations (page 45 of report). To mitigate this finding they state that NAT testing was not available at the time to be reflected into their model period.

They then go on to state that if 12 month deferral was put in place then an additional 1 infected unit would be issued from every 136,000 new Men, Sex with Men (MSM) donors. With some more statistical jiggery pokey they state that effectively 12 month deferral increased the risk by 66%, and with no deferral the risk increased to 458%. (page 46) The Lib Dems want the deferral removed completely! ……………………………..Do we really understand all this and where is the RELEVANT medical and ethical discussion on this blog? Viruses mutate and take other forms. Can we afford to be complacent?

The number of countries that have a 12 month or less MSM deferral system is described by the report as being small. Of the countries listed in the report, currently, 17 have permanent bans 6 don’t, although those that don’t have qualifiers that provide exclusion by other means. What does that tell you? Do we always know what is best?

The report accepts that is morally right to exclude certain groups from giving blood. The report admits that infected donations i.e. those who should not donate (table 2, 2009) are underestimated in regards to donor selection criteria. What is going on in the media at getting to grip that this is a medical issue not a human rights one. Is the media coverage ethical, or are societal changes and political correctness dictating health policy? Our Health Minister is spot on and until any one can convince me otherwise, he will continue to get my support.

Gerry 19

What a cheap Christophobic comment deliberately coined to demean, to be insulting and to cause offense.

Further to my Post 23, there is no mention of the effects of the clustering of risk groups such as MSM, in the blood donation data and report. Maybe I missed it in the report, but the affect of the clustering of high risk populations on their risk analysis does not seem to be considered, or perhaps it was and it just wasn't disclosed.

Higher population centres may have a higher percentage of potential donors who may be high risk and so local risks may be greater. The fact that the current tests appear to work so well is not evidence that will always protect us. e.g. We have no test for vCJD.

This is why we need to be ultra cautious, especially in the light of a very basic but vitally important ommision. So why are we not putting the other UK health Ministers in the dock? Why is their decision not under scruitiny? Is that not an ethical and reasonable point of view, given the right to life?

I doubt we will get any health professional, who is not a member of a lobby group, to discuss this topic without the fear of making a career limiting statement. After it is not that long ago since the media went after a health professionals scalp for a not unrelated matter.

Check_that_out

"To date the BBC have relied on the Terrence Higgins Trust"

Not true the BBC have the same information from the body designated by the government and the blood transfusion service to decide the criteria for blood donors, they recommended the 12 month deferral not the Terrence Higgins Trust.

A Man who has sex with a woman who is HIV+ has a 12 month deferral
A Woman who has sex with a man who is HIV+ has a 12 month deferral
Only Mr Poots maintains
A man who has sex with another man (regardless of their HIV status) is banned for life.

I question his motives.

26 Dave

Dave glad to see you have questions also on this matter. However like you I have not yet made my mind up, and I am open to persuasion.

I am refering to those who the BBC have actually put up for interview in order to provide the public with informed comment and understanding, and to date they have, in e.g Nolan Shows, relied on the THT to provide analysis and a defence of the decision.

I have no beef with the THT but where is the input from public health professionals? Is there a chill factor preventing health professionals commenting?

Even this morning, on William's Sunday Sequence programme, we have the likes of Calum Webster and the Rev Lesley Carroll, and a former priest and New Human Rights Comissioner providing analysis and informed(?) commment. It is disgracefull situation and extreemly unbalanced of the BBC not to have a professional and informed debate.

From other bloggers comments you will find that this presentation tatic is a common one in the broadcast media. The discussion is carried out by non professionals with limited appreciation of the issues and because of that will be steered in the direction that the interviewer wants, in this case, was it to highlight the gay rights equality issue rather than risk to public health? People who phone in to this type of discussion will assume this is a gay rights issue rather than public health, and will respond predictably. (It is conditioning, note the waysign photo posted by William above.)

The SaBTO report states 'Although they formed part of the original Terms of Reference of the Steering Group, the review was not able to consider the 12 month deferral for individuals who had sex with partners from high risk endemic geographical areas.' Have you thought to ask why not, and what effect this consideration would have for the proposal to lower the MSM deferral period?

Remember, the Health Minister could be subject to judical challenge over his decision, and that given that we have not heard of one, at present anyway, I'm begining to wonder why not?

Perhaps the BBC can commission their own independant review of the donor selection criteria by a panel of health professionals.

I heard the item on Sunday Sequence. The claim by Poots that his decision is based on scientific reasoning is a load of hooey. It is clearly derived from his fundamentalist Christianity, as is his desire to have creationism taught in Lisburn schools.

It's the usual Ulster 'head in the ancient desert sand' mentality which makes us the laughing stock of the civilised world.

The real health warning is not in relation to 'gay' blood but the one the pilot gives approaching Aldergrove: "fasten you seats belts and turn your watches back 400 years".

We live in a province riddled with moral godfathers whose message never changes: hang murderers, flog thieves, smack naughty children, cane pupils, ban sex education from schools, stigmatise gays, make RE compulsory and exclusively Christian, teach that the earth is 6,000 years old, keep out foreigners, find faults in others that they exude themselves - the nice people with the oh so nasty minds.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

CTO

The discussion is carried out by non professionals with limited appreciation of the issues and because of that will be steered in the direction that the interviewer wants, in this case, was it to highlight the gay rights equality issue rather than risk to public health? People who phone in to this type of discussion will assume this is a gay rights issue rather than public health, and will respond predictably.

This certainly seems to be the case.

No matter if one's argument is predicated on medical evidence, supporting this ban is apparently prima facie evidence of bigotry.

Brian

The claim by Poots that his decision is based on scientific reasoning is a load of hooey. It is clearly derived from his fundamentalist Christianity, as is his desire to have creationism taught in Lisburn schools.

If Poots' decision is clearly derived from his 'fundamentalist Christianity' you should have no trouble showing that. The connection between believing homosexual acts to be sinful and forbidding those that commit such acts to donate blood is not immediately obvious, at least it is not obvious to me. Of course, there may not be a connection. Whereas the connection between a belief in young earth creationism and the content of a schools curriculum seems reasonably straightforward.

Even supposing his motivations are irrational prejudice he has presented a medical case for his decision. That his motivations are irrational does not mean the argument he has presented publicly is not sound. And as such that argument cannot be dismissed simply because his motivations are suspect. Should that argument be dismissed simply because of his motivations then those dismissing it are ruled by dogma just as much as it is claimed Poots is.

I don't have an axiomatic objection to gay men donating blood despite believing homosexual acts to be sinful. All donations of healthy blood should be gratefully received. The point at issue is healthy blood and how that can be determined. Is there a greater risk of STDs amongst gay men? If so, is the addition of the 12 month stipulation an adequate control to reduce the risk of infected blood being donated? How should we define adequate? Is there a tolerable error rate? Is there a shortage of blood under the present system?

28 Brian McClinton

Very 'reasoned' and typical response, from the blind leading the blind. Turn your own clock back to 18th Oct 2010 when the Daily Mail had the head line 'GOOD HEALTH VIEWPOINT: 2,000 dead and still no justice for the victims of Britain’s blood transfusion scandal, by Ian Birrell. View it online.

The UK Blood transfusion scandal: 4,670 British haemophiliacs were left infected with Hepatitis C, of whom 1,243 were also infected with HIV. He states in the case of one child, who died of HIV, that the parents were not told he also had Hepatitis C for 3 years. The blood that killed him was discovered to have come from prisoners in Arkansas in the U.S.

He goes on to state that almost 2,000 people had since died as a result of the infections, with scores more needing organ transplants, and dialysis. Some victims inadvertently infected their partners. His main point is that the Government Conservative and Lib Dems had then refused compensation for victims even though they called for it in opposition.

The real point for us here is that we have to assume, regardless of any assurances to the contrary, that the system is as flawed today, as it was in the past. This is a standard risk analysis approach. No more, no less. Unlike armchair pundits like you, Doctors and health professionals have to bury their mistakes.

The public expect Ministers to take a pessimistic view of risk, and to ignore any other social pressures no matter how well connected. What you want is for us to take a chance.

I believe that nothing should be agreed until everything is agreed. If the law needs changed because it is scientifically right to do so, then all countries must move together on this issue or not at all. How else can the ordinary public hope to have confidence if they are unsure that ministers will take the right decision, or the politically correct one?

Given that our Government contains Ministers (Lib Dems) who would want the complete removal of deferral for MSM, we have no choice but to take a sceptical view of what we are being told. Isn't that also the Humanist position?

Gay people serve the British military & spill blood for their country alongside heterosexuals in their company, yet they're not good enough to give blood in a civilian capacity. On a pragmatic note, maybe it would be a good idea to put the decision under review for a couple of years to see how the change in policy works on the mainland. Then N.I can implement a change if the health service here is up to the same standards as the rest of the UK

28, Well said Brian. You encapsulate perfectly how N.I is viewed from the outside. The UK & EU keep throwing money at it, but they really need to pay greater scrutiny to who they're giving the money to.

It also doesn't go anywhere near to addressing the fact many gay men here don't identify as gay men! The real health issue in Northern Ireland is compounded by a homophobic political class. Those people living a secret gay life who don't address their health or emotional needs. There really are people who thump on about the Bible and spout anti gay venom then go look for a hook up on gay websites. I know people like that!

The new Human Rights Commissioner, Michael O’Flaherty, has the opportunity, indeed the responsibility, to initiate a judicial review of Minister Poots’s decision. The Assembly can and will do nothing. This is identical to the gay/unmarried couples adoption law reform which the DUP vetoed, forcing Monica McWilliams and NIHRC to initiate a judicial review.

There is no other way to get round the DUP veto on gay law reforms which is basically the only reason (apart from self-interest) that they are devoted to devolution. It is not as if Poots can rely on the permissible discrimination exception that exists in GB law on blood donations as NI failed to add that exception to the relevant statute.

As there are proportionately far fewer gay men in Northern Ireland and a much lower AIDS/HIV rate per head than in GB, the tiny risk from gay men donating blood is much lower. Perhaps the Department of Health could do a statistical analysis examining this local aspect?

The new Chief Commissioner is however quite wrong (or ill-researched) to aver he was very disturbed by the fact that last year homophobic hate crimes “appear to have doubled.” They haven’t. The number from 2008/9 to 2009/10 went up from 175 to 211, five times fewer than doubling.

He should also become aware of the good news that such incidents and crimes are now declining. According to the PSNI, homophobic incidents rose from a low of 28 in Q3 2009/10 to reach a peak of 64 in Q1 2010/11 before falling each quarter to a level of 45 recorded in Q4 2010/11. They added “The latest figure is only three higher than for the previous quarter. Homophobic crimes showed a similar trend to the incidents. However the latest figure shows a decrease on the previous quarter, falling from 33 to 27.”

Framer

It must be borne in mind that there exists strong evidence that shows that the number of homophobic incidents reported to the police is but a fraction of the true number. Marian Duggan has written a paper on the subject and on page 86 she examines the issue of why official figures for homophobic crimes are especially low. On page 90 she cites a survey carried out by the Equality Commission Northern Ireland 2009 that found that 23 per cent of people in Northern Ireland would mind a gay, lesbian or bisexual person living next door to them.

https://shu.academia.edu/MarianDuggan/Papers/216744/Duggan_M._2010_Homophobic_Hate_Crime_in_Northern_Ireland_in_N._Chakraborti_ed._Hate_Crime_Concepts_Policy_Future_Directions_Devon_Willan

Has Poots expressed a view on organ donations? If someone needs a replacement organ to stay alive, would Poots be against that person receiving a replacement organ from a homosexual?

I am afraid, Newlach (35), that you fail to address the point raised. That many such crimes go unreported is irrelevant. You can only count those you know about - all of which applies of course to other hate crime categories.

O'Flaherty having said he will approach local issues with care, as he is a newcomer, cites statistics in this one key instance which are wildly inaccurate.

23% in the Equality Commission survey (2009) not wanting a gay neighbour (or a migrant worker) is actually quite a heartening figure given that the DUP, for one, polled 30% in the Assembly election earlier this year.

NEWSFLASH FROM OUTSIDE WORLD- REF DAVID NORRIS


....on a related topic, has W&T or Sunday Sequence given any mention to the heated row over David Norris standing for Irish President???

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394458/Sex-abuse-survivor-My-anger-Senator-David-Norris-disturbing-views-paedophilia.html

Perhaps Amnesty International could take part and give their views on the ethics in question as they have been big supporters of his in the past?

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/events_details.asp?ID=1584

William

There is a serious error in your intro.

You say;-

"Northern Ireland's health minister, Edwin Poots MLA (pictured, right), has ruled that sexually active gay men will not be permitted to donate blood."

In fact, sexually active gay men will still not be able to donate blood in GB under the new regulations.

In place of a lifetime ban on gay men donating, the GB new policy is that gay men will be allowed to give blood there, but only on condition they have not been sexual active with another man in the previous 12 months.

OT

OT -

Nice to see you've shown up again. Any thoughts about this?

OT,

NEWSFLASH means news not a report from 3 months ago which has been done to death.

Isn't it amazing that no opponent of Mr Poot’s decision wants to investigate the medical evidence, to examine it, and to make a reasoned judgement for themselves as to any risk to health presented.

No one can say there is no risk to health, and I don’t know anyone who does. Giving blood and receiving blood is not without risk. The 2010 Shot (Serious Hazards of Transmission) report informs us that from 1996 to 2010, there were 66 recorded confirmed incidents of Transfusion Transmitted Infections. In 2010 the SHOT report states there had been over 48 reported incidents from UK hospitals, but none were 'proven' Transfusion Transmistted Infection. Note the special use of the word 'proven' in the report. (In one case the blood bag was destroyed locally so unfortunately it could not be analysed.) Not all incidents were reported to the investigating authority. The report states that some incidents were reported to the NHSBT/HPA Epidemiology Unit only and not included in the SHOT report.

This is not meant to be alarmist. This sort of data is 'normal work in progress' of the Department of Health undertaken to protect us. However it is clear from the data that no system is fool proof. These good people are working on the edge of the technology available to them.

Unfortunately some bloggers writing here are intent to bury their heads in the sand and will play the uninformed homophobic card as they turn a Lord Nelson’s eye to the problem. It demonstrates bias in their position and is totally morally wrong.

Nobody has a right to hate any section of our community but two wrongs don’t make a right. What have hate crimes to do with giving blood? What has homophobia to do with the risk in giving blood? This is a health issue, but the presentation has been spun in one direction, that this decision is discrimatory. We are not being informed of the real issues brought to the fore by this decision by the media, or indeed this blog.

If the bloggers agree with what the SaBOT reports says on health protection grounds, why do the Lib Dems want to lift the ban altogether? Why does Stonewall continue to be ambiguous on the 12 month deferral? Bearing in mind, what Stonewall want Government delivers, did Stonewall, or any other Review Group Members argue for the complete lifting of the ban or was the 12 month decision a compromise decision? Will the minutes of the meetings be made public? Was any voting recorded? Has William asked?

Given that Stonewall ambiguous position on the ban, and the Lib Dems stated preference to lift it all together, just where will we find the scrutiny of their position on this blog? Just what does it take to say the Emperor may have no clothes?

Just a point of order William. The SaBOT nor indeed the minister Mr Poots advocates a ban on any gay man from giving blood. Be accurate. We can and do accept that gay men are the most likely to have MSM sex, and whilst they are not the only ones who have MSM sex, will accept that as a group they will be affected the most.

The SaBTO consideration and advice concerns the deferral of 'any' man who has ever had a certain type of sex with another man in the UK. Gay men as a group are never mentioned. So your headline 'banning gay blood in NI’ is misleading and points to a deliberate loading of the argument directing it from a health issue to a gay rights issue. Or perhaps the BBC is championing on behalf of the gay lobby?

In the interest of fairness and balance you should change your head line to - Ministers decision disproportionally affects gay men. I would leave in the 'Blood sacrifice' bit in as it refers to the risk element of blood donation within the discussion.

CTO,

"Isn't it amazing that no opponent of Mr Poot’s decision wants to investigate the medical evidence, to examine it, and to make a reasoned judgement for themselves as to any risk to health presented. "

a) It is SaBTO who are the expert group tasked with researching and investigating the medical evidence and with making recommendations to parliaments and assemblies. Who else should be doing it ?. So the answer to your point is that for the people who oppose Mr Poots the investigation by SaBTO is the reasoned judgement. Mr Poots has not offered any credible opposition to it or any creditable defence of his decision.

b) England, Scotland and Wales authorities already have accepted those recommendations. The real question is what other evidence does Mr Poots have from his advisers which makes NI a special case.

SHot Reports, research, expert opinions and blood receiver groups knowledge and concerns were all part of the investigation by SaBTO and so they are already factored into the recommendations

I am however interesteding that despite all your investigation you failed to point out that SHoT's overall conclusion in the 2010 report was

"Notably, this is the first year in which there has been no confirmed case of transfusion-transmitted infection (TTI)".

As for your case for MSM/verses gay your argument only shifts things around from direct discrimination to indirect (as in it has the effect of discriminating disproportionately against a protected group) so it is a red herring as the impact of the decision is discriminatory and therefore unjust.

Take two cases

A man and a woman who have only ever had sex with each other and have engaged in no other activities which attract risk are free to give blood free from any kind of deferral.

Two men who have only ever had sex with each other and have engaged in no other activities which attract risk are subject to a lifetime deferral.

The effect of this legislation is discriminatory and so Will's title reflects that discrimination even if it is the effect and not the intention of the legislation.

I disagree with your analysis but that disagreement does not alter the fact that there is discrimination (either direct or indirect) against gay men even if the target of the legislation is MSM as it disproportionately disadvantages gay men in its effect.

The reasons why Stonewall and many other LGBT groups are lukewarm about the whole regulations system is not because they don't want to remove the deferral for gay men (or MSM) but that they believe that a system should be based on the risk factors of the individual and not so weighted on blanket restrictions based on gender and so disproportionately impacting gay men.

For instance a promiscuous heterosexual is a much greater risk to the blood supply than a homosexual who has been celibate for a year and yet there is no restriction on that individual in NI on giving blood. That individual could go to the pub, pick up a partner of his or her choice, have sex, pick up hep B or HIV and give blood the next day. We rely on blood screening to protect us but that is only useful after the period in which the virus becomes testable (9 days for HIV, 6 months for Hep). The current system allows for mistakes by not challenging an individuals sexual activity and pushes away much safer blood by deferring for life significantly lower risk groups.

As someone who has received a number of blood transfusions over the last 10 years or so, I would feel happier if the blood I receive has been checked and is safe.

However, I do wonder if Edwin Poots is doing this because of health and safety concerns, or a religious conviction.

If it's for health and safety reasons, will he also extend the ban to heterosexual men who have had sex with prostitutes ?

Or indeed, any sexually active male or female who has had multiple "partners"

44 Dave

Let me put this discussion another way for you. Will patients, who will receive blood under the change, be any less at risk than before the change? The answer undisputedly is that the blood given by donors under the 12 month deferral, will contain a significant higher risk of viral infection than before the change. The report says as much.

The NBS is therefore required to spend vast sums of money on testing technology to mitigate the increased risk. This is bad practice, bad science, high cost approach, and seems to be done only to placate a minority interest group.

Who has sex with who, and who can give blood, should not be the starting point; it is the protection of vulnerable patients and determining the measures necessary to reduce any possible risk to those patients.

By the way, reviewing the members of the SaBOT committee makes good reading. A good question to ask is who was representing patients on the SaBOT review? Stonewall? THI? etc.

Why were interest groups on the committee in the first place? Why were they not just asked for an input and the decision taken based by professionals soley on the clinical evidence?

When you view this change from a patients’ perspective you will come up with a completely different view of this proposal to weaken blood safeguards, and it is not a homophobic one.

I agree with Peter, the ban should apply equally to any sexually active people- homosexual and heterosexual- who have multiple partners. The ban should be lifted for any who are in monogamous relationships, where both parties are able to proove they have a clean bill of health.

47 Ryan

I believe that a ban should apply to anyone who presents a risk, homosexual, hetrosexual or whoever. MSM is a major risk, monogamous or not, because of the risk of carrying blood borne virus.

When we start to understand the language of risk and the transmission of infection, we we will begin to understand the real issues involved.

This really is a real life or death issue. Read my post 31.

Blood donor screening is what is done at the moment and it still has a requirement to exclude high risk groups such as MSM, even though the deferal period is reduced to 12 months.

When people settle into monogamous relationships, they often follow a familar pattern- to fulfil a set of requirements, one being a full health test. Once trust has been established, a person's word is articulated through their test results, indicating a clean bill of health. This rigorous requirement is expected from relationships, regardless of sexuality & the same rules should apply to blood donors. The rules should be sensitive to promiscuity not sexuality.

45.At 22:32 28th Sep 2011, Peter wrote:
As someone who has received a number of blood transfusions over the last 10 years or so, I would feel happier if the blood I receive has been checked and is safe.

However, I do wonder if Edwin Poots is doing this because of health and safety concerns, or a religious conviction.

If it's for health and safety reasons, will he also extend the ban to heterosexual men who have had sex with prostitutes ?
***
Here in the States they ask whether you've accepted money for sex & other questions re sexual behavior, travel to foreign countries, & drugs. Having no social life (nor travel or criminal interests), I answer "No." And they go ahead & let me donate blood. But what would stop an individual from not telling the truth? The Red Cross, etc takes you at your word when you donate & then goes on to test it anyway.

CTO,


"The answer undisputedly is that the blood given by donors under the 12 month deferral, will contain a significant higher risk of viral infection than before the change. The report says as much."

Which report says that? The SaBTO report say that the increase in risk is from 1 in 4.41 Million donations to 1 in 4.38 Million donations - to use the word significant is hyperbole.

The report also states that a major issue is non - compliance and if compliance rates are increased due to better understanding and a fairer system then we could see the incidence go to as little as 1 in 6.2 Million donations. So there could well be a positive move in the figures due to the deferral period being 12 Months as MSM see it as fairer and are more willing to comply (born out by research quoted elsewhere in the report)

"The NBS is therefore required to spend vast sums of money on testing technology to mitigate the increased risk. This is bad practice, bad science, high cost approach, and seems to be done only to placate a minority interest group"

Nonsense - the NBS is mandated to test all blood for various infections no matter what the source there is no increase in expenditure or change of practise required.

"Who has sex with who, and who can give blood, should not be the starting point; it is the protection of vulnerable patients and determining the measures necessary to reduce any possible risk to those patients."

I agree.

As for the make up of the committee perhaps you should read it again (by the way THT is not a special interest group it is the leading HIV/Aids charity in the UK)

MSM people are not a minority interest group they are humans.

51 Dave

No occurance of the word 'patient' on your post. I rest my case.

The Blood transfusion relies on 1.4 million donors (who if they donate at twice a year - 2.8 million donations) to support 52 million potential patients. That is 2.8*5 = 14 million donations screened in the first 5 years. Over 10 years that = 28 million donations screened.

The numbers are large. The SaBOT report states that, 'Due to the number of blood transfusions carried out each year it is not possible to follow up each one individually. The UK blood services rely on the national haemovigilance ssystem for the reporting of any potentiall transfusion-transmitted infections ......... and as with many other countries the risk of an infectious unit being issued for transfusion is calculated using a residual risk model.' It goes on to explain that the UK model is based on the current prevalence of infections, window period for each marker, incident infection etc. Even with the most sensitive tests, they say, window period infections will still be missed due to a risk of a false negative.

It further states that on residual risk estimates and a totqal of 2.5M donations processed each year, they estimate that teatong will NOT (their capitals) indentify approximately 2 HBV infectious donations every year, one HCV every 33 years, one HIV every 2 years, and one HTLV 1 every seven years.

The NBS states that the potential for TTI's remains low. They go on to state taht 'Resilience in blood tranfusion requires anticipating threats, and blood services anticipate these threats and reduces the risks in transfusion through using low risk donors, using good manufacturing practices......etc. Note 'low risk donors'.

1 So the model has possible errors due to under-reporting to SHOT, so risk numbers may not be correct.

2 The numbers are large so simple ratios can be misleading.

3 The report states that "an acceptable risk could be described as low risk but it should not be assumed that a smaller risk is necessarly more acceptable. Risks are less acceptable if they: are involuntary; inequitably distributed; inescapable; unfamiliar or novel; man-made rather than natural; cause hidden and irreversible damage; pose a danger to small children, pregnant women or future generations; damage identifiable victims; are poorly understood; and if they are subject to contradictory statements. Risk perception is complex and consequently, there is probably no single acceptable level of risk with regard to TTIs."

4 Mike Judge of the Christian institue asks, "As recently as April, experts said that would increase the risk of HIV entering the national blood supply by about 2.5 per cent. The same experts said a five-year deferral period would increase the risk by almost five per cent. So, it is not unreasonable to ask how high is the increase in risk with a 12-month deferment period? The official report into the matter suggested the increased risk could be as high as ten per cent."

Who are we to believe? On what basis are we to believe?

I will accept any clinical guidance when I can be assured that the decision has been impartial and taken in the best interest of patients, and only patients. To date William has not addressed, as far nas I know, this issue from that perspective, and it seems, given the BBC gay rights agenda, is not likely to do so.

Doesn't change the fact when supplies get low in N.I they will be sourced from other parts of the UK. And the issue is still one of promiscuity not sexuality

53 _ryan_

Blood supplies could now come from the ROI which continues to have the ban.

An example then of Poots aligning Northern Ireland to the Republic, rather than to the UK by operating a cross-jurisdiction policy for the Island of Ireland, where the NHS in N.I relies on a different domains healthcare system

The risk involved in blood donation could be potentially significantly reduced by fast tracking the research into Blood Substitutes.

Maybe William could interview leading scientists in the UK or else where, concerning the status of the research into modified hemoglobin, or perfluorochemicals. These new aproaches, at least 20 years in development, have the potential to be a game changer and phased trials are underway in various countries, including the UK where patents have been applied for.

I believe that the XIII ISBS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON BLOOD SUBSTITUTES XIII took place in July 27-29, 2011, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. That should be a good place to start.

53
Ryan, regardless of Mr Poots motives, I would have thought that you could perhaps realise that, with GB implimenting the new guidelines on blood donation, from October, NI might be viewed as a control group to access risk, given the significance of the proposed change. This is standard practice in medicine and other disciplines where risk is involved, and should be welcomed. It's call not putting all your eggs in one basket.

Interestingly, an Americans Blood Centre Statment, proposing a change to a 12 month deferral, states:

"However, this impact has not been measured directly; it has only been modeled using what may be incomplete assumptions. The blood collectors are willing to assist in collecting data regarding the actual impact of changes in the deferral, in order to allow for informed decision-making, and/or for the development of additional, appropriate interventions to ameliorate the impact."

From the way this statement is worded you can see they are hedging their bets.

Isn't it remarkable how quickly the subject of Mr Poots decision on deferral has been dropped both in the media, and on this blog; only 57 posts? Given the hand ringing there has been, I can’t believe that the issue has gone away. Total silence from William, what is going on?

Has someone in the NBS some skeletons in the closet? Has the medical equivalent of a D notive been served? Or perhaps the coverage of this issue has been re-examined by the powers that be and a damage limitation exercise has been put in place in respect of public confidence?

Where has been the investigative journalism, a Spotlight programme, is it under way? Perhaps someone out there, if there is anyone out there, has the answers.

Why should you care Checkout? Nothing's changed in N.I 'cept now it's more closely aligned to the Republic/IBTS than it is to the UK health service.
My personal feeling is EVERYONE should get a health MOT once a year. It's pretty naive to take someone at their word as mscracker points out. Using the word Gay as barrier is pretty useless when a huge percentage of gay men don't identify as gay men- esp in countries with high levels of state sactioned homophobia. Then there's the high proportion of people in this province who suffered childhood sexual abuse- often blocking it from their minds as they go into adulthood & the legion of married couples who have extra marital affairs makes a mockery of the current system. Promiscuity not sexuality should be the deciding factor. It's a pointless system when there are situations where a married mother can drop her kids off at school in the family tank then go give blood unaware her husband has had 50 or so sexual partners in the last year

WILLIAM - YOUR POST IS IN SERIOUS FACTUAL ERROR AS PREVIOUSLY ADVISED, ABOVE.

THE *REVISED* LAW IN GB DOES NOT ALLOW SEXUALLY ACTIVE GAY MEN/MSM TO GIVE BLOOD.

THEY MUST WAIT 12 MONTHS AFTER SEX WITH ANOTHER MANY BEFORE GIVE BLOOD.

TO SUGGEST THIS IS EDWIN POOTS POSITION IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

EDWIN POOTS POSITION IS THAT GAY MEN/MSM WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED TO GIVE BLOOD - EVEN IF THEY WAIT 12 MONTHS AFTER THEIR LAST SEXUAL ENCOUNTER WITH ANOTHER MAN.


You said:

Northern Ireland's health minister, Edwin Poots MLA (pictured, right), has ruled that sexually active gay men will not be permitted to donate blood.

EDWIN POOTS POSITION IS THAT GAY MEN/MSM WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED TO GIVE BLOOD - EVEN IF THEY WAIT 12 MONTHS AFTER THEIR LAST SEXUAL ENCOUNTER WITH ANOTHER MAN.

OT,

Calm down - no need to shout !!.

The real danger is the teinted blood of the promiscuous & those in relationships who sleep around- especially those that lie/cover up/deny it to their partners

@ 61 & 63. Ryan,
Those thoughts occurred to me, too.
The first time my daughter & I attempted to donate blood we were turned down because we were borderline anemic.We were given stickers to wear saying "I Tried to Give Blood."
The screening questions the Red Cross asked that year were especially graphic in detail-or perhaps it just seemed so because it was the first time we'd gone through the process- & when we walked out into the lobby with those stickers on it was a bit embarrassing.

Hi Ryan

I can well understand why glb folk feel marginalised by these rules.
I did a little research and understand that the GB dept of health uses an advisory committee which has found that certain blood diseases have been statistically higher in the blood of sexually active gay men/msm.

I dont know enough to say if they are therefore being treated unfairly compared to other risk groups.

I do know that anal intercourse whether practised by gay, straight or bi people is a very high risk activity regarding blood health, because the back passage tissues are so fragile, in sharp contrast to the vaginal tissues which are designed for vigorous intercourse.
Back passage intercourse therefore frequently leads to tearing of the tissues and faecal matter etc mixing with blood which causes a big risk of blood infection and other health risks.
So anal intercourse does carry high risks for blood health. (see wikipedia on anal / rectum etc for further details).

I am sure someone will say, anal intercourse is not exclusive to the glb community and of course that would be strictly speaking true.

I guess the question could therefore be put to the government, could it not categorise risk in donors based on the riskiness of their sexual practises rather than their gender???

I dont know enough to draw a conclusion on how feasible that would be. Maybe someone else could comment.


Dave - I did draw attention previously in a low key way to the fact that this entire thread is based on a factual blunder BUT NOBODY SEEMED TO NOTICE.

THAT IS WHY I SHOUTED ON THE SECOND OCCASION.

- despite the revised guidlines in GB, sexually active msm still cannot donate blood there.

Poots however insists that even sexually inactive msm will not be able to donate in NI.

I do honestly feel we should at least get our facts correct on a thread intro before people start tearing strips off each other due to differing interpretations of said facts.

:)

OT

The promiscuous shouldn't be allowed to donate, forget dicing it up by sexuality. Plenty of gay men don't identify as gay men- they and their wives will continue to give blood. Same with those having extra-marital affairs. Northern Ireland is a hypocritical society that's paid & continues to pay a massive price for its hypocrisy. It should never be allowed devolved government. Stormont showed how incapable it was in the middle of the 20th century & now given the reigns again- they carry on where they left off- having learnt nothing. Nothing.

When the blood dries in my veins
And my, heart feels no more pain
I know, I'll be on my way
To heaven's door

59 Ryan

I care because I care for patients. Any person presenting a risk in donating blood to the blood transfusion service should be prevented from doing so. That is the bottom line. If a particular risk group falls into that category so be it.

The problem for us here is that a concerted effort from gay pressure groups, groups like Stonewall, have conducted a prolonged campaign to lift the deferral period for blood donation for reasons other than health. Other groups including the Lib Dems want a complete lifting of the ban.

If the MSM group is a risk to blood supply then the deferral period should remain. If they are not a risk to blood supply then the deferral period should be removed. No other consideration or conclusion is, in my opinion, permissible. It is not acceptable to argue to allow any suspect blood into the system just because other risk groups do it, or because we have the technology to detect infected blood. That is bad science, and an unacceptable risk to patients.

Manufacturers design out problems at source and they seek to get it right first time. Inspection is seen as a cost, not a benefit. The problem for the NBS is that donors are self-selecting and the system is based on honesty and trust. The NBS admit that even small risks may be be seen as unacceptable.

It seems to me that the media, and some bloggers here, are primarily viewing this health decision through gay lobby eyes. Is it any wonder that the public will have doubts about the whole process with the resulting lack of confidence.

It is one thing to accuse the minister of making his decision based on his perceived homophobic view, it is another thing to present a coherent scientific argument showing that he is wrong. The health case is not being presented to the public in an informed way by the left wing media, such as the BBC, and so the Minister is being vindicated by default. Without openness and transparency, we are left completely in the dark.

I'd like to see someone with a medical background & a lifetime's worth of experience in the field make the decision- like they did in the rest of the UK- than have the decision land on the door of a gormless, religious bigot with a tenuous grip on reality. Can't believe people pay taxes for his salary

69 Ryan

I appreciate your point of view, and you may well be right about the Minister. The point is that other countries have the life ban and the UK is in the minority in Europe and the world. What is good for us should be good for everyone else, if the science is right.

Would it not be a good thing if the World Health Organisation would make a ruling on this topic so that all countries could fall into line, that is, if a 12 month deferal is the right decision to be made? Mr Poots would then have no cover and I would have some confidence that the decision was made on purely health grounds.

The decision by GB is seen by many to be a response to lobbying and was not based on health alone, however it is dressed up. The risks are not lower and they agree that this so, but a u turn has been made, (based on previous NBS justification for the complete ban) and it is argued for on the basis that the science, especially NAT testing and the reduced window periods allows us to reduce the deferral period and so continue to protect us. They also agree that a significant weighting factor in their decision was the new equality law.

Having a SaBOT freview that contains pressure groups is no way to produce an independant report. I really am trying to get to the bottom of this.

Problem here is Irish politicians

Check That Out

"Left wing media such as the BBC."

I watched the BBC's coverage of the Tory Party Conference on Newsnight, last night. (I did have to force myself.)

I witnessed overt racism and attacks on the poor go completely unchallenged by Jeremy Paxman and Andrew Neil. I have often felt that, especially in the coverage of war, the BBC has behaved like it was an official branch of British Foreign policy.

Its many things, its certainly not 'left wing.'

OT,

Your comments about the riskiness about the activities of gay men (and many heterosexuals) forget the fact that the risks are all but eliminated by using condoms. This is why the rules should be based on the risky sexual practises (or lack of) of the people presenting themselves for blood donation. Sexuality is irrelevant - the sexual practises are. I know lots of gay men who only practice safe sex and are tested regularly - they provide a much lower risk to the blood supply than heterosexuals who have unprotected sex with untested partners and yet the rules ignore this.

"I guess the question could therefore be put to the government, could it not categorise risk in donors based on the riskiness of their sexual practises rather than their gender???"

I agree with you, so does Stonewall, so does the rainbow project and so does Terrence Higgins Trust. The problem is complexity and the invasive questions which people may not honestly answer but given the actual modality of infection it would be the obvious approach.

Just to go back to

EDWIN POOTS POSITION IS THAT GAY MEN/MSM WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED TO GIVE BLOOD

CTO, RJB

Surely it depends on what is meant by left and right?

I'd be interested to know how either of you would define those terms.

75 Andrew

Andrew, I have an opinion that the BBC has a left wing basis, i.e. a liberal agenda expressed through the way it reports news, current affairs or drama. I’m sure we don’t need to rehearse Coronation street story lines, intelligent design or global warming debate. Or even how the Nolan Show and Sunday Sequence reported the NI blood donor deferral issue above. Here are quotes from some who actually work or who have worked at the BBC. Why should I comment further, when these people who know, do it so much better?
1
BBC attempts to be politically correct e.g. the AD BC / CE BCE debate. https://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2011/09/terms-bbc-common-broadcaster
2
SIMON WALTERS, Mail on Sunday [Mail on line
Last updated at 21:11 21 October 2006

“At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians. One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.
'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'”
……..Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organization with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html
3
BBC drama commissioning controller Ben Stephenson responds to criticisms of the corporation's drama output (Guardian July 16 2009)
“Working in TV drama isn't a nine-to-five job, it is a wonderful, all-consuming lifestyle. It gobbles up everything. It is glorious. And with passion comes debate, discussion, tension, disagreement. If we didn't all think differently, have different ideas of what works and what doesn't, wouldn't our lives, and more importantly, our TV screens be less interesting? We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking.”
https://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/jul/16/ben-stephenson-tony-garner
4
Peter Sissons Jan 2011 –
For 20 years I was a front man at the BBC, anchoring news and current ¬affairs programmes, so I reckon nobody is better placed than me to ¬answer the question that nags at many of its viewers — is the BBC biased? In my view, ‘bias’ is too blunt a word to describe the subtleties of the pervading culture. The better word is a ‘mindset’. At the core of the BBC, in its very DNA, is a way of thinking that is firmly of the Left. By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html

Just a short selection.