Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated, 15.17
IRISH HEALTH AUTHORITIES have said they do not plan to change their laws which ban men who have sex with men (MSM) from giving blood – despite a British decision today to relax a similar ban there.
The UK government’s Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs this morning concluded an 18-month review by deciding that the ban there – which banned any man from ever giving blood if he had slept with another man – should be relaxed.
From November, Britain will now operate a 12-month deferral period – meaning that men who have not had gay sex for the past year may now offered blood donations.
Northern Ireland has yet to decide whether it will adopt the recommendation – but the Irish Blood Transfusion Service, which oversees blood donations in the Republic, says it has no plans to follow suit.
“We currently ask those who may have a particularly high risk of carrying blood-borne viruses not to give blood,” an IBTS statement this lunchtime said. “This includes men who have ever had sex with another man or men.”
It added:
The decision is not based on sexuality or orientation, only specific actions. The IBTS has a responsibility to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of safe blood to meet the needs of patients.
Both jurisdictions had banned the donation of blood from MSM in the 1980s in order to reduce the risk of donated blood containing HIV.
IBTS said that recent Irish data showed a higher rate of HIV among men who slept with men than among others, and that while it tested all donations for HIV, a small number of infected donations could be missed because of a ‘window period’.
Tiernan Brady of the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (GLEN) said that the most important aspect of the blood supply was that it was safe and inspired public confidence.
He said the British review had been based solely on scientific evidence, and said the review’s findings had to be taken on board by the IBTS.
European health commission John Dalli has said that while countries should not discriminate against potential blood donors on the basis of their sexuality, it is permissible to ban donations from people on the basis of sexual activity.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
the biggest obstacle is religion
The biggest problem is lack of education. I have lived in the AIDS capital of the world and religion was not the barrier there
religion is a barrier to education
Religion has nothing to do with this.
It’s lack of education and knowledge. Full stop.
I agree education is key, education in safe sex and removal of tribal cultures surrounding ‘cures’ for HIV, and especially key is the education of women – as they tend to be more likely to pass onto children, where culture and tradition have not yet become indoctrinated.
However, Africa has a boom in Catholicism: http://www.africamasterweb.com/AdSense/AfricaAndCatholicism.html
And the official Vatican stance and that of catholic relief and aid workers is that condoms are not to be condoned or distributed: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june11/vatican_05-30.html
This is despite condoms and testing being key to the decrease in HIV infections in the Western World.
Have you checked the numbers between countries with many Catholics and those with the highest AIDS rates? They might not match as closely as you believe.
Most of Southern Africa, which is where you will find those countries with the highest rates of AIDS are actually predominantly protestant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa#Southern_Africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country#Africa
Just to point out that I am actually an agnostic and so not a Church supporter but there’s no point blaming them for something that is not entirely their fault
Without getting into lies, damn lies, and statistics I would wonder how much of those protestants in Southern Africa are from an ex-pat background and therefore less likely to be an victim of HIV?
Like I say, I’m not discounting what you’re saying – I’d just like to see relief organisations (of which many are Catholic) move towards teaching and promoting safer sex, rather than unrealistic abstinence.
Most of the Africans in Southern Africa are protestant.
Most African catholics were converted by Catholic Missions who generally stayed around mid-Africa whereas the protestants (English, Dutch, etc.) settled and converted in Southern Africa.
I’ve grown up there. I know the statistics
I would like to say that I too, would like to see a realistic approach to teaching safe sex and use of condoms as opposed to using the ridiculous notions that Africans will follow the idea of abstinence
Siomha,
I remember Bishop Desmond Tutu addressing a WHO conference and declaring that the attitude of Catholic missionary and aid groups to condom use had exasperated the spread of the disease in Africa.
Religion is only a small part of it – need to look at the bigger picture!
I’ve been living with HIV for seven years. If it wasn’t for the antiretroviral drugs I’d be dead. Huge advances in the treatment and decreases in the stigma attached to the virus have been achieved, but there’s still a long way to go. The virus is seen as a manageable disease and therefore not the threat is once was. This is folly. I wish the only impact on my life was the taking of a tablet each evening. Little is known about the long-term effects of these drugs; nor about the very real risk of dementia, cancers, pneumonia, skin conditions and the host of opportunistic infections being infected leaves you prone to. Education is everything.
Why does Concern’s Senior HIV Adviser never mention the use of CONDOMS to fight Aids in developing countries? NOT MENTIONED ONCE.
I find that surprising as well. Condoms are the main way to prevent the spread of AIDS and nearly all anti-AIDS campaigns use those as their main platforms.
Maybe it is more than just the use of condoms that is important?
Si it is more but they are the best way to prevent AIDS spreading. Every campaign should highlight that
Could have sworn I heard the news on the radio say infection in young people here had risen sharply
The article doesn’t break down the infection rates by demographics so you could be right. The overall trend seems to be going the right way.
You did hear that. Young men 24 to 39 at highest risk, I think. Ignorance is on the rise because the heyday of AIDS campaigning was 20 years ago when they were little kids.
Hmmm.. There were people in Swaziland eating faecal matter not so long ago because they couldn’t take their AIDS meds on an empty stomach (talk about skewed priorities – drugs are more important than FOOD now?)
This article also points out that in the place where new infections are rampant nutrition and sanitation leave a lot to be desired..
Wonder how many people in the 3rd world get “diagnosed” with AIDS when malnutrition and poor sanitation is the true reason their immune systems don’t work? Bearing in mind that the “tests” (ELISA and western blot) specifically state that they are unsuitable for determining the presence of HIV, a virus that has not been isolated. Rather these tests measure viral load and antibody response (and can test positive if you have the flu, are pregnant, or have just had a vaccine – hence the two tests taken several weeks apart).. There are people starving, they are obviously not adequately nourished, and instead of making sure that they can eat – drugs take priority (and companies like concern just keep pushing that appalling quality soy based muck and drugs approach rather than building self sustainability and organic farming)
I do not wish to detract from the seriousness of the problem, but something here reeks of fish..
have your say