Blood donation
I like to think that the world can be changed by pieces of paper and electrons being shuffled about. So when I get involved in activism I'll be writing pointed but polite letters, which often are quite effective. Finally sent an email to Access to Work asking them to explain why they refuse to send out blank forms, insist they have no fax or email despite the details on their letterhead (for extra moron points, the email address leaves off the final .uk), and refuse to send out blank forms even when the person requesting it clearly can't understand 90% of what the caseworker is saying on the phone. And to consider this a FOI request.
I'm sure their response will be amusing. :)
What I want to do now is make a FOI/EIR request to the National Blood Service (or NHS Blood and Transplant, as they now call themselves, asking them to explain why men who have sex with men are barred for life, but women who have sex with MSM are barred only for 12 months, but don't actually mention 'if you've had sex with someone who is HIV/HepB/HepC positive' - whereas they feel the need to mention you shoudln't donate if you have one of those viruses. The current NBS website is quite crap in that it it's very hard to find the criteria for donating - it tries to make you use their yes/no quizlet or email them.
However I eventually found the criteria here: https://secure.blood.co.uk/c11_cant.asp
I couldn't find their logic for this stance, although a search found this article:
http://www.blood.co.uk/hospitals/library/pdf/bm19.pdf
Men who have sex with men
The evidence for barring MSM from donating blood is
soundly based, though frequently (and vocally)
contested by those who claim that our policy is
unjustified - and even denies human rights - as more
heterosexuals than MSM in the UK are now newly
diagnosed with HIV each year. However, from HPA
data and sociological surveys it can be estimated that
approximate numbers of men newly diagnosed with
HIV in the UK each year are very approximately
1 in 1000 for MSMs;
1 in 2,000 for men who are not homosexual or
bisexual, but who may have other risk factors such as
drug use or born overseas (especially in Africa);
1 in 40,000 for heterosexual men with no other
identified factor which might put them at higher risk.
We can expect continuing challenges to our policies,
including from registered civil partners. Current criteria
are consistent with the EU Directive which bars those
whose sexual lifestyle puts them at relatively high risk,
although occasionally MSM nationals from other EU
countries state that they regularly donate at home.
The NBS goes by UK epidemiology where higher risk
in MSM is amply demonstrable.
Many other issues - such as history of malignancies,
age, etc - are frequently discussed. All criteria are
regularly examined and re-adjusted whenever
possible. However policies have to fit working
conditions at sessions, and pragmatism has,
occasionally, to modify the ‘science’.
Frank Boulton
Consultant Haematologist
Email: frank.boulton@nbs.nhs.uk
Acknowledgements: Dr Dave Hutton, Chairman of
the Standing Advisory Committee on the Care and
Selection of Donors
Now if this was spelt out a bit more (1 in 1000 what? MSM or men/people in general? Or donors? How many of the MSM were *also* overseas/drug users?) with some extra info (1 in 3 people with HIV is unaware of being infected, how many blood bags are pooled for testing and have to be destroyed if a bag is postive, etc), the policy might actually be defensible. And publishing that evidence would enable the NBS to deflect the ill-will they get a lot of because of this policy.
So I want to ask for the most recent stats on which the policy is based, and how often it is revisited. Also how many donations have to be destroyed if one is positive, and what percentage of false negatives they get in their testing.
Anything else people would like clarified?
I'm sure their response will be amusing. :)
What I want to do now is make a FOI/EIR request to the National Blood Service (or NHS Blood and Transplant, as they now call themselves, asking them to explain why men who have sex with men are barred for life, but women who have sex with MSM are barred only for 12 months, but don't actually mention 'if you've had sex with someone who is HIV/HepB/HepC positive' - whereas they feel the need to mention you shoudln't donate if you have one of those viruses. The current NBS website is quite crap in that it it's very hard to find the criteria for donating - it tries to make you use their yes/no quizlet or email them.
However I eventually found the criteria here: https://secure.blood.co.uk/c11_cant.asp
I couldn't find their logic for this stance, although a search found this article:
http://www.blood.co.uk/hospitals/library/pdf/bm19.pdf
Men who have sex with men
The evidence for barring MSM from donating blood is
soundly based, though frequently (and vocally)
contested by those who claim that our policy is
unjustified - and even denies human rights - as more
heterosexuals than MSM in the UK are now newly
diagnosed with HIV each year. However, from HPA
data and sociological surveys it can be estimated that
approximate numbers of men newly diagnosed with
HIV in the UK each year are very approximately
1 in 1000 for MSMs;
1 in 2,000 for men who are not homosexual or
bisexual, but who may have other risk factors such as
drug use or born overseas (especially in Africa);
1 in 40,000 for heterosexual men with no other
identified factor which might put them at higher risk.
We can expect continuing challenges to our policies,
including from registered civil partners. Current criteria
are consistent with the EU Directive which bars those
whose sexual lifestyle puts them at relatively high risk,
although occasionally MSM nationals from other EU
countries state that they regularly donate at home.
The NBS goes by UK epidemiology where higher risk
in MSM is amply demonstrable.
Many other issues - such as history of malignancies,
age, etc - are frequently discussed. All criteria are
regularly examined and re-adjusted whenever
possible. However policies have to fit working
conditions at sessions, and pragmatism has,
occasionally, to modify the ‘science’.
Frank Boulton
Consultant Haematologist
Email: frank.boulton@nbs.nhs.uk
Acknowledgements: Dr Dave Hutton, Chairman of
the Standing Advisory Committee on the Care and
Selection of Donors
Now if this was spelt out a bit more (1 in 1000 what? MSM or men/people in general? Or donors? How many of the MSM were *also* overseas/drug users?) with some extra info (1 in 3 people with HIV is unaware of being infected, how many blood bags are pooled for testing and have to be destroyed if a bag is postive, etc), the policy might actually be defensible. And publishing that evidence would enable the NBS to deflect the ill-will they get a lot of because of this policy.
So I want to ask for the most recent stats on which the policy is based, and how often it is revisited. Also how many donations have to be destroyed if one is positive, and what percentage of false negatives they get in their testing.
Anything else people would like clarified?