hayleyedinburgh

Blood Donor

59 posts in this topic

I pooped in to my local blood donor centre to offer blood, and was told I cant as I have been paid for sex. I told them I have regular checks in the very same building, and have a clear record, but still they said no.

I think this is silly as I know plenty of girls that have unprotected sex regulary without being paid, but its ok for them to give blood.

Whats your thoughts on this?

Hugs xxxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pooped in to my local blood donor centre to offer blood, and was told I cant as I have been paid for sex. I told them I have regular checks in the very same building, and have a clear record, but still they said no.

I think this is silly as I know plenty of girls that have unprotected sex regulary without being paid, but its ok for them to give blood.

Whats your thoughts on this?

Hugs xxxx

I think it's complete bollocks, another example of of the blinkered views people have of this industry.

As you quite rightly state, given how meticulous the majority of ladies and even some of the guys are with regards to both protection and testing you're in more danger from a random pickup in a bar on a Friday/Saturday night, the paranoia seems even more stupid when you consider that the donor's blood is tested every time they donate for all the major nasties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pooped in to my local blood donor centre to offer blood, and was told I cant as I have been paid for sex. I told them I have regular checks in the very same building, and have a clear record, but still they said no.

I think this is silly as I know plenty of girls that have unprotected sex regulary without being paid, but its ok for them to give blood.

Whats your thoughts on this?

Hugs xxxx

Were you actually asked if you had been paid for sex? Literally (in the truest sense)? Or did you offer it voluntarily perhaps with reference to your sex life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have been so open. I've given blood before without saying that I've paid for sex. As RR says, the blood is tested anyway before being used so it can't ever be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pooped in to my local blood donor centre to offer blood.

Just reread your post Hayley - if I'd pooped in the centre - without a doggy bag - I would expect to be turned away!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pooped in to my local blood donor centre to offer blood, and was told I cant as I have been paid for sex. I told them I have regular checks in the very same building, and have a clear record, but still they said no.

I think this is silly as I know plenty of girls that have unprotected sex regulary without being paid, but its ok for them to give blood.

Whats your thoughts on this?

Hugs xxxx

Tricky.

I am unaware of the full range of tests carried out on blood before it's transfused into the recipient.

There have been tragic cases in the past when diseases unknown to science were passed from infected people to uninfected people via transfusions.

Sex workers may be at a higher risk of contracting such diseases.

Hayley, I think it would be fair to ask for the health authority's reasoning behind their decision. Then a more considered opinion can be formed by us.

Edited by Reverend Dick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have been so open. I've given blood before without saying that I've paid for sex. As RR says, the blood is tested anyway before being used so it can't ever be a problem.

Wrong.

The screening process for HIV and Hep are NOT 100% accurate.

This means it is POSSIBLE for HIV+ blood to be transfused into a patient unknowingly.

This is why they have to be extremely cautious about who the want to take blood from. There is ALWAYS a chance the blood they transfuse is infected, all they can do is minimize the probability of that by excluding certain high risk groups such as gay men, intravenous drug users and sex workers.

Edited by Sweexy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong.

The screening process for HIV and Hep are NOT 100% accurate.

This means it is POSSIBLE for HIV+ blood to be transfused into a patient unknowingly.

This is why they have to be extremely cautious about who the want to take blood from. There is ALWAYS a chance the blood they transfuse is infected, all they can do is minimize the probability of that by excluding certain high risk groups such as gay men, intravenous drug users and sex workers.

Wrong.

The screening process for HIV and Hep are NOT 100% accurate.

This means it is POSSIBLE for HIV+ blood to be transfused into a patient unknowingly.

This is why they have to be extremely cautious about who the want to take blood from. There is ALWAYS a chance the blood they transfuse is infected, all they can do is minimize the probability of that by excluding certain high risk groups such as gay men, intravenous drug users and sex workers.

I can quite understand the need to derisk it but would Hayley actually have been asked if she was a paid sex worker, quite literally?

I had glandular fever as a teenager and was told i was a donating no no for life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can quite understand the need to derisk it but would Hayley actually have been asked if she was a paid sex worker, quite literally?

The Give Blood website says:

"You should never give blood if:

You have ever had syphilis, HTLV (Human T - lymphotropic virus), HIV or hepatitis C.

You've ever worked as a prostitute.

You've ever injected yourself with drugs - even once.

You should not give blood for 12 months after sex with:

A man (if you’re a male). Men who have had anal or oral sex with another man (with or without a condom) are deferred from blood donation for 12 months.

A man who has had sex with another man (if you're a female).

A prostitute.

Anyone who has ever injected themselves with drugs.

Anyone with haemophilia or a related blood clotting disorder who has received clotting factor concentrates.

Anyone of any race who has been sexually active in parts of the world where AIDS/HIV is very common. This includes countries in Africa. (Please be aware that if we have previously made special arrangements for you to donate you should check with our 24 hour helpline on 0300 123 23 23 as we have made some changes to our processes)."

So, yes, they will specifically ask that.

Edited by Grendel22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, extensive.

Thanks for that. How naive am I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that you were given a form to fill in, and not asked the questions directly.

I have not given blood for years now, as I just got out of the habit of going along.

I was aware of if you worked as a sex worker you were not allowed to though.

I do not like the idea if having anyone's blood in me.

Rules are rules though, so fair enough.

Lucy :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you actually asked if you had been paid for sex? Literally (in the truest sense)? Or did you offer it voluntarily perhaps with reference to your sex life?

It's on the written list you have to read and sign to confirm you've read it.

I had glandular fever as a teenager and was told i was a donating no no for life

I don't think glandular fever debars you (no idea whether it once did). There's no question on the long yes/no list re medical conditions about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many posters, I think women who go & shag any passing fool are worse than prostitutes. The sexual conduct of modern Britain is dramatically different from what it was when that rule was written.

Sexworkers who engage with sexual health services have a lower incidence of STDs than the general population.

I pray I never need blood from one of them. Don't even get me started on the men!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, it's a load of bollocks.

I engage in ONLY protected sex, whether professional or personal, and have full blood-screenings every two months. I would say I'm a much lower risk than the average person.

In addition, if I were having exactly the same amount of sex as I'm currently having, but there was no money involved, I'd be allowed to give blood?

I didn't realise that you could catch HIV from being paid.

(In addition, according to the criteria it doesn't seem like I need to even be having protected sex, as long as it's not with someone from a HIV-epidemic area or a bisexual man).

My best friend is gay. He's never had unprotected sex in his life. But he can't give blood either because he'll usually have had protected anal (or oral! OW is apparently a HIV risk!) in past 12 months.

I, for one, will continue to give blood. I answer all the other questions truthfully, and lie on that one.

Edited by Curious Rose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, it's a load of bollocks.

I engage in ONLY protected sex, whether professional or personal, and have full blood-screenings every two months. I would say I'm a much lower risk than the average person.

In addition, if I were having exactly the same amount of sex as I'm currently having, but there was no money involved, I'd be allowed to give blood?

I didn't realise that you could catch HIV from being paid.

Yup. Thats pretty much the jist of it from the looks of things. So if I saw a girl and had unpaid sex with her then found out that she worked as an escort, do I have to wait 12 months or not? :huh:

My best friend is gay. He's never had unprotected sex in his life. But he can't give blood either because he'll usually have had protected anal (or oral! OW is apparently a HIV risk!) in past 12 months.

I, for one, will continue to give blood. I answer all the other questions truthfully, and lie on that one.

Well, I dont think you should lie. No matter how we disagree with the rules. If something happened and it was determined that it came from a sex worker who lied on her form, even when the cause has nothing to do with her work. Do you think theyd focus on the cause or start ranting about lying sex workers.

Unless they change the rules, and let me give blood, then I wont bother. Im not the one who is losing out.

Edited by Overworked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very worrying that there are contributors to this thread openly admitting to lying on medical forms, just so they can give blood.

Lying about sexual lifestyles can, no matter how small the risk, gravely affect the chances of the recipient of a transfusion. It's quite likely the recipient is already ill, or even immunocompromised.

Threads like this could have the Daily Mail headline writers working overtime, damaging the PN community.

I would be amazed if this thread stays here for long.

Edited by Reverend Dick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's incredibly frustrating being turned away, we have to understand they cant afford to take any risks.

Why do we get tested regularly despite practising safe sex?

Even the ladies who dont offer owo get tested. Why? Is it because we know that while the risk is teeny tiny, it is still there? We have several sexual partners per month. You may have had the all clear last week, but whats to say an innocent kiss, owo, or ro hasn't resulted in an sti since? I have not given blood since I started escorting for this very reason.

I've never contracted an sti, but I'm always aware the risk is there [no matter how small] and ALWAYS nervous when I go and get tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While it's incredibly frustrating being turned away, we have to understand they cant afford to take any risks. Why do we get tested regularly despite practising safe sex? Even the ladies who dont offer owo get tested. Why? Is it because we know that while the risk is teeny tiny, it is still there? We have several sexual partners per month. You may have had the all clear last week, but whats to say an innocent kiss, owo, or ro hasn't resulted in an sti since? I have not given blood since I started escorting for this very reason. I've never contracted an sti, but I'm always aware the risk is there [no matter how small] and ALWAYS nervous when I go and get tested.

The fact is no one knows how many WGs or punters really do get tested on a regular basis, its not proveable so relies on what in many cases a total stranger tells you. As i wouldnt risk my health just be taking such a strangers word for it i look after my own sexual health which is the best i can do. Trust no one you dont know when punting or pulling would be my advice to all..

This donating of blood ban is more a moral issue than a medical one in my opinion. Those that impose such bans view WGs as unclean and i daresay the less enlightened believe the media stereotype of drug addled street workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly, it's a load of bollocks. I engage in ONLY protected sex, whether professional or personal, and have full blood-screenings every two months. I would say I'm a much lower risk than the average person. In addition, if I were having exactly the same amount of sex as I'm currently having, but there was no money involved, I'd be allowed to give blood? I didn't realise that you could catch HIV from being paid. (In addition, according to the criteria it doesn't seem like I need to even be having protected sex, as long as it's not with someone from a HIV-epidemic area or a bisexual man). My best friend is gay. He's never had unprotected sex in his life. But he can't give blood either because he'll usually have had protected anal (or oral! OW is apparently a HIV risk!) in past 12 months. I, for one, will continue to give blood. I answer all the other questions truthfully, and lie on that one.
Excellent post. I completely agree, but add its an absolute load of bollocks. Great point about being paid over not, shows its morality thats behind this ban. I dont think its a good idea to lie though but thats your business of course. ;) Edited by smiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What generally happens with sets of rules like this is that they are drafted, and then over a period of time merely added to and amended, as and when necessary. So the foundation of the current set probably stems from many years ago, reflecting what was the underlying social situation then. The service was set up in 1946, and probably these rules reflect the social situation prevailing in eras following then, eg the period when the pill became freely available and HIV and AIDS hadn't been heard of, when there were far more street workers compared with escorts, as we know them, than today. At that time condons were not habitually used by those paid for sex, or at least there was no hard and fast rule by sex workers, as today, and these rules probably reflect the situation prevailing then.

It would take a brave editor of the rules to write out prostitutes from the list, and think of the abuse heaped upon that editor the first time it went wrong if it were to be written out.

Of course, in this modern era, it is manifestly wrong, and, perhaps, the whole definition of those prohibited from giving blood should be revisited, but it would still be a brave rule writer who would alter things enough to deal with this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This donating of blood ban is more a moral issue than a medical one in my opinion. Those that impose such bans view WGs as unclean and i daresay the less enlightened believe the media stereotype of drug addled street workers.

Whatever their reason may be, I'm looking at this from a medical point of view.

I would not consider giving blood while I have so many sexual partners, this would apply whether I was escorting or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's incredibly frustrating being turned away, we have to understand they cant afford to take any risks.

Why do we get tested regularly despite practising safe sex?

Even the ladies who dont offer owo get tested. Why? Is it because we know that while the risk is teeny tiny, it is still there? We have several sexual partners per month. You may have had the all clear last week, but whats to say an innocent kiss, owo, or ro hasn't resulted in an sti since? I have not given blood since I started escorting for this very reason.

I've never contracted an sti, but I'm always aware the risk is there [no matter how small] and ALWAYS nervous when I go and get tested.

This is true, but in that case it should be anybody not in a monogamous sexual relationship who's excluded. My point is that we, as prostitutes, are no more of a risk than any sexually active person. And they don't ask "how many partners have you had?" or "are you especially sexually active?", so evidently it's not the number of people you're having sex with that's the risk factor, or they would be investigating that in all donors.

I think this is just one more way in which society pushes the idea that prostitutes are drug-addled cesspools of disease, and frankly it makes me furious.

It's unjustifiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What generally happens with sets of rules like this is that they are drafted, and then over a period of time merely added to and amended, as and when necessary. So the foundation of the current set probably stems from many years ago, reflecting what was the underlying social situation then. The service was set up in 1946, and probably these rules reflect the social situation prevailing in eras following then, eg the period when the pill became freely available and HIV and AIDS hadn't been heard of, when there were far more street workers compared with escorts, as we know them, than today. At that time condons were not habitually used by those paid for sex, or at least there was no hard and fast rule by sex workers, as today, and these rules probably reflect the situation prevailing then.

It would take a brave editor of the rules to write out prostitutes from the list, and think of the abuse heaped upon that editor the first time it went wrong if it were to be written out.

Of course, in this modern era, it is manifestly wrong, and, perhaps, the whole definition of those prohibited from giving blood should be revisited, but it would still be a brave rule writer who would alter things enough to deal with this issue.

I agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse my Grammar lol, I meant popped!! I would not lie on the form but its still annoys me. they could check my past screenings quite easily. When I challenged this, the Doctor said they are hoping to change the rules in future as they have done with Gay men.

The risk is, the 3 month period where some of the more serious diseases can lie dormant .

Thanks for your replies, and sorry about my spelling and grammar ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now