Blood Service redux

[damerell]

I'm replying suchlike to comments I've left screened, which I think I've done fairly aggressively.


Something that crops up frequently is "the restrictions on men who have sex with just one man". There is no such restriction. There is a restriction on men who have sex with any number of men and an impracticality of digging down to find the very small number of men (and hence very small quantity of blood) in that group who represent a risk lower or equal to current donators.

There's a suggestion that "ever" is a long time and the person could be made re-eligible after a successful blood test. But there are some risk categories where no amount of time lowers the risk to that of the population at large. "If someone really wants to give blood" - well, again, the exercise isn't there to let people give blood.

Again - and this needs reiterated, because it's missed a few places - there is _no_ 100% screening technique after _any_ amount of time. vatine's point that we also have to worry about the next blood-borne disease is also to the point.

Bone marrow register don't have the same criteria; sure. They have less bone marrow than demand and the people who need it will likely or certainly die without it. Many of their patients would have their life expectancy improved by a 100% guaranteed HIV-infected transplant.

Comments

[dangerouslysane.livejournal.com]

This is late, but happy birthday, sweetie! I hope it was excellent & that all your best wishes come true. In a really nice way!

[damerell.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I shouldn't apologise for lateness, it's not like I remembered yours. :-/

[dangerouslysane.livejournal.com]

That's okay--I'm just as bad as you are. For the rest of your birthday month, I'll let you slide! :-/

[naath.livejournal.com]

Given the lack of 100% screening why do they believe that *I* don't have it if I abstain from sex for a year a show clear on the test but not you? That's dumb.