Quote:
THEY ARE GOING TO TEST THE DONATED FLUIDS ANYWAY - STRAIGHT OR GAY.
So why ask the question and discount a numerically large section of the community from civic duties?
|
Tests don't work if the exposure was recent, but infection can still occur.
I think something like 6 months can pass after you are exposed to HIV, and you have noticeable amounts of antibodies? And, IIRC, you can still pass HIV on before you test positive for the HIV virus.
If you want it to be safe, take a donation, put it on ice, have the donar return in 6 months, test the donar for fluid-transmitted deseases, then use the fluid or organs.
That particular method would increase the safety of human products. It would also cost a fuck of alot more, and massively reduce the amount of viable human tissues availiable.
Quote:
|
You say you agree that it's wrong, so why are you trolling the devil's advocate line?
|
Because the arguements against screening are being made wrong. I don't know which is the correct answer (I have an opinion, but I do not know), but basing your decision off the wrong information or assumptions is the wrong way to get it.
Tests are not 100% effective. The amount of contaminated tissues used is the product of the contaminated tissues/fluid donated and the effectiveness of the tests.
Reducing the percentage of donated tissue/fluid is one way to make the end product safer.
How safe do we want our fuild/tissue? How expensive do we want our fluid/tissue? How common do we want our fluid/tissue? How sensative are we to offending people in making our fluid/tissue safer?
All of these are factors. And you can trade-off between them. It is often a trade-off: sometimes you find a solution that makes the situation strictly better. The offensive pre-filtering of tissue/fluid donations by behaviour/group is, I suspect, a trade-off. One that I personally think is worth it, but people who claim that it isn't a trade-off without evidence should be disagreed with.