Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Britton J Wingfield
All blood is screened. However, most people who are infected will test positive for the first six months. During this time, they are infectious, and any blood taken from them will be, also. That is why when somebody has an accidental exposure to HIV, they are tested immediately and then after six months. The first test is just a baseline, to determine whether the infection resulted from the accidental exposure. Until they get a negative result after six months, they are advised to take precautions to avoid transmission of the disease.

If the Red Cross wanted to develop better information, I guess they could ask if somebody has had unprotected homosexual sex within since 1973 and then follow up with HIV testing questions and ask if they have done so within the last six months. However, from their point of view, it is more practical to just exclude the entire population, and take blood from a lower risk group. The increase in the number of available donors that would result from a more thorough screening is so small that the added complexity and possibility for tragic error is not justified.

It's a practical issue, not a civil rights one. Nobody is denied a civil right because they are unable to give blood. In fact, one can donate and have a completely confidential way to opt out from having their blood transfused, if one is under societal pressure to donate.

70 posted on 10/02/2001 12:54:05 PM PDT by gridlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: gridlock
OOPS. Infected individuals will test NEGATIVE for as long as six months, while still being infectious. I should proofread more carefully.

PS. I used the confidential opt-out on a blood donation once, for an unrelated reason. I had been taking malaria preventative medication in the previous six months, but we had a big blood drive at work and everybody was expected to pony up. I did so, but used the confidential opt-out sticker to make sure there would not be a problem with my blood. There were no problems whatsoever.

71 posted on 10/02/2001 12:59:05 PM PDT by gridlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

To: gridlock; et al
Just as a footnote: I had surgery the beginning of this year, and did autologous blood donations. (When you put aside your own blood for your own personal use.) Anyway, even though it was being put back into my own body, they still did the the basic screenings each time. However, they didn't do as stringent of a job since I was getting the blood right back and it wasn't going to anyone else.
73 posted on 10/02/2001 1:07:25 PM PDT by Enough_Deceit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson