[learc83]

The blood donation ban isn't because of the stereotype of changing partners. It's because men who have sex with men are much more likely to have HIV. [1] (81% of all newly diagnosed HIV cases are from men who have sex with men)

Now whether the ban is effective or necessary is another debate, but it's a legitimate public health debate. Not just an attack on homosexuals driven by ignorance.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

[bmir-alum-007]

The entire blood donation routine lifestyle/behaviors questionnaire of self-reporting is of little value because people can make mistakes or intentionally misrepresent their status. A far better approach is to test all donated blood, all the time for significant communicable, incurable diseases. If it's "too expensive," then newer/cheaper tests need to be developed.

[learc83]

All blood is tested for HIV and other infections diseases[1]

The reason for the questionnaires is that a recent HIV infection won't always show up even with the best most sophisticated tests.

So we do the best we can to screen out people who are most likely to have recently acquired HIV. Screening out IV drug users, men who have sex with men, sex workers, and people form countries with high rates of HIV, eliminates the vast majority of new HIV cases without eliminating a large percent of the population.

Again, people can lie so self-reporting may not be worth it. You'd have to do a study to find out. And even if it is, the number of HIV infections prevented may be so low that it doesn't justify infringing on the rights of people to donate. But, that's the debate.

[1] https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/prevention/reduce-your-...

[bmir-alum-007]

There is no debate that a hateful double-standard (lifetime ban) is allowed to stand, the questionnaire can be essentially eliminated right now by more rigorous and comprehensive testing using modern lab processes. If the testing is up to standards, arbitrarily throwing out certain groups is a only shortcut which imposes hate systematically and normalizes it.

[deciplex]

It isn't "hateful", it is reducing the likelihood of someone getting an infectious disease from a blood transfusion, by any means necessary. Even if you wave a wand and improve testing, then remove the ban, you're still going to have higher rates of infection than if you improve testing and keep the ban.

If public health is improved more by the ban, than it is reduced by decreasing the supply of blood somewhat or increasing the cost of testing, then it is totally irrational to insist the ban be removed (assuming your goal is to maximize public health).

[learc83]

I haven't read anything that indicates that there is a time and cost effective test that can detect HIV in blood during the 2 week window period.

That being said, I've never taken a stand on the morality or efficacy of questionnaires (and I definitely don't support a lifetime ban, neither does the red cross by the way).

I do however, think that labeling a public health policy as hateful is counter productive.

Hateful implies that the doctors and policy makers who instituted the ban hate men who have sex with men (as well as IV drug users, sex workers, and people from high risk countries). I don't think that's true.

[thaumasiotes]

> The blood donation ban isn't because of the stereotype of changing partners. It's because men who have sex with men are much more likely to have HIV. [1] (81% of all newly diagnosed HIV cases are from men who have sex with men)

Those aren't unrelated. They're much more likely to have HIV because of the many simultaneous partners.