[FormerLib]

Caplan argues that the FDA could relax some of the restrictions, thus increasing the number of qualified donors. "What possible reason would we have to defer donors who have not converted to AIDS since 1977?" he asks. "The disease has no such incubation period. Moreover, we can reliably detect anyone exposed to HIV within a year after the exposure." He suggests that instead of disqualifying those people forever, asking them not to donate for three years after engaging in risky behavior would achieve the same level of safety.

It is as I thought, yet another attempt by the Homosexual Agenda to deny that they spread AIDS and represent a danger when they are mixed in with the rest of society. They've been trying for years to have questions about their deviance dropped from blood screenings. I am becoming convinced that their goal is to increase HIV/AIDS infections among the heterosexual community. After all, they never stop "engaging in risky behavior" until they die, do they? Anyone foolish enough to believe they'd tell the truth when asked such questions? Want to risk the life of someone you care about to prove it?

[neverdem]

The questions are only an initial screen. The blood is still tested for H.I.V., hepatitis B and C, HTLV-1, cytomegalovirus and syphilis. They don't want to waste manpower and resources on blood that can't be used. The point of the article is that we probably have gone from sublimely naive to rediculously restrictive in screening blood.

[endthematrix]

I was shocked when one of the questions asked was, "have you ever served time in prison?"

"No. Is that because HIV is so common in prison?"

"Yes."