I do the testing myself. And yes, all donated blood IS screened for HIV, but NOT using the latest very expensive test that can indicate very RECENT exposure.<quoted text>
All blood it tested for HIV.
Do you really not know this?
The question reads: "Male donors: Since 1977, have had sexual contact with another male, even once?"<quoted text>
Risk screening should be used to separate out anyone who has engaged in high risk behavior rather than focusing on sexual orientation.
That is not a question about the potential donor's sexual orientation, but about his BEHAVIOR since 1977. A "yes" answer, even in cases of rape, results in permanent deferral from donating blood.
Yes there is. HIV can go undetected for a VERY long time. And infection rates remain highest by FAR among males who have engaged in sexual relations with other males. Even if they identify as "straight."There is no reason to exclude people who are not infected and have not had the opportunity to become infected in a year.
First, your statement is simply false. And second, REPEATED testing is not ordinarily done on each sample. If it shows up in a sample, and that donor has donated blood in the past, EVERY SINGLE recipient of that donor's previous blood donations (and it could be up to three persons per donation) has to be notified and tested. The cost of doing that is astronomical.While the virus can go undetected for a month or more, the new policy would require no risk of exposure within a year, which is plenty of time to develop the antibodies which would show up in the repeated testing.
Blood banks are non-profits. Why bankrupt a lifesaving non-profit organization just to avoid hurting the feelings of high-risk donors?
This entire debate is patently STUPID, since the purpose of donating blood is to help the community rather than to assert some imagined societal approval of high risk behavior. If a way can be found to INEXPENSIVELY test for HIV antibodies that show up much earlier following exposure, MAYBE a one-year provision could make sense. But to insist that non-profits spend millions on super-expensive testing rather than simply ask donors about high-risk sexual behavior is endanger every community's ability to maintain a ready blood supply.
You're effectively asking the rest of us to forgo a ready blood supply so that homosexuals won't be offended. Our society is already sacrificing too much to avoid offending Muslims, women, blacks, native Americans, and every other "special class" that demands it.
There is no such thing as the "right" to not be offended. And there is no such thing as a "right" to donate blood, and to jeopardize the blood supply with a lethal plague just to avoid offending some "special" class of people.