[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.