Homosexual men should be allowed to donate blood

Unfortunately, I’m not quite sure that any of what was said in his bygone round amounts to an argument suitable to overcome what I have already presented. It is true that many people do not know that they have HIV, but certainly not MOST, like my opponent said. In fact, current statistics suggest that 1 out of every 5 HIV carriers do not know they carry it. However, it only follows from the evidence that out of those 20%, there is a 77% likelihood that they are MSM (as this comports with the statistical trend). Despite the conspicuous absence of a strong case by my opponent, I will still address his arguments accordingly. There seem to be at least four arguments that my opponent is defending:1. Heterosexuals have the same problems2. We must rely on Tests alone3. Having sex is a risky behavior4. The FDA should ask questions more directly linked to blood tainting diseasesHeterosexuals have the same problemIt is not true that heterosexuals as a general category carry anywhere near the statistical risk that men who have sex with men do. According to trends, there is a 77% probability that any new reported cases of HIV will be from a man who has had sex with a man. This is an inordinate and demonstrably disproportionate risk burden on a verifiably minute subset of humanity. Let’s look very seriously at the statistics at this present moment. There are approximately 300 million people in the United States. Out of that 300 million, only 33% of them are eligible to donate, which is approximately 104 million eligible donors. Somewhere in the range of 75 million people are ineligible due to medical restrictions, the rest due to age restrictions. To be fair, if we take the midrange estimate of the population of MSM, which is 4% (3.9% really, but let’s make it easy and say 4%), then that means there are approximately 8,840,000 MSM. If took MSM off as a prescreen risk behavior and thus subtracted the 8,840,000 MSM from the medically ineligible list, it would still be safe to say that 21% of the 8,840,000 MSM would be medically ineligible for some other reason. This leaves approximately 6,983,600 eligible donors, only 10% of which are likely to donate, leaving 698,360 donors to be gained by removing the MSM ban on blood donations. Statistically, such an increase is incredibly insignificant, a hairs-breadth over half a percent (0.67%). [1][2]What is worse is that this is actually quite generous, as this does not take into account the fact that MSM actually have a statistically greater chance of having other medical conditions (viral hepatitis) that would significantly lower their eligibility. We Must Rely On Tests AloneIt is not clear why my opponent believes that we must rely solely on tests, especially when he seems to contradict himself when he talks about other risk behaviors. Groups with statistically higher risk of Malaria, Hepatitis, HIV and other blood borne ailments should be screened for. This includes IV drug users, prostitutes and those who frequent their services, and those who travel to countries with a high risk of these problems (especially Malaria). In fact, based on the numbers, a much stronger case could be made for lifting the ban on IV users, prostitutes and those who frequent their services, and those many who travel to any of the many restricted countries. My opponent has also neglected to reconcile the facts of my previous round with his argument here. We cannot rely on tests alone, despite their high rate of accuracy, for the precise reason that they are not always accurate! Moreover, it would be professionally irresponsible to have no other safeguards then these tests in place, where human error, test inadequacy or other factors could lead to infected blood entering the donor reserves. The facts state that available HIV tests are not always adequate. I will quote again from my previous round, “a person is infected with HIV, but may not have enough virus or have developed sufficient antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of HIV infection. ”Having Sex is a Risky BehaviorIt is so abundantly clear from all the data available that MSM have a lion share of the HIV burden, a share so disproportionate with their population that to deny this is deny reason outright. Any risk that is assumed by those who practice sex other than MSM and prostitution, is so negligibly smaller then the risk assumed by MSM and prostitution that trying to equate them in any way is rationally impossible. Yet I curiously await what sort of data my opponent will share in order to make this argument. The FDA should ask questions more directly linked to blood tainting diseasesMy opponent makes the erroneous claim that it is smart to weed out the risky behaviors of traveling and needle sharing with their questions, but thinks that MSM is not nearly as risky. This is demonstrably false given the data, as I have already shown in my previous round. 77% of HIV infections have been attributed to men who have sex with men. Moreover, the most recent case where tests fail to yield positive results for blood that was, in fact, HIV positive, was from a man who had sex with a man yet lied on his test. This shows that such behavior is obviously risky AND that tests are not a surefire indicator of infected blood. ConclusionAll the available data suggests that MSM is an enormously risky behavior and that allowing people who participate in such behavior to donate blood would assume too much liability, leave no reason for banning other less risky practices (needle sharing, prostitution, country traveling), and be professionally irresponsible. When dealing with the health of others it is best to play it safe, and it is much safer to deny blood donations from those who carry a significant risk of having infected blood, especially with how many have HIV but do not know it. [1] . http://www.benthamscience.com...[2] . http://www.hhs.gov...