Ban on gay blood donors upheld by panel

[Al B. Sure!]

Is there perchance a :rimshot: smiley? No, probably too complicated to animate smoothly. I haven't read the thread; what exactly was BK's argument for rejecting much-needed blood that will be tested before it's used anyway? I'm going to guess that the minuscule chance of a failed test outweighs the constant demand in his world...

found it, Elok...

[Zevico]

1. Apparently infection numbers are lower among heteros.
2. Permitting donations from gay people means an increase in risk of infection due to a resulting increase of incidence of human error in the blood testing process.
3. End result--analysis: (1) risk of increase in infection vs (2) demand for blood. Most rational approach? Economic analysis. Cost in increased infection rate in the populace, viz in infection and resulting treatment cost, attendant stress etc vs. cost of less healthy blood in system (viz resulting death or injury from blood loss). The same analysis can be carried out among the various blood types if necessary.
4. Conclusion: the greater the demand for blood, the more reason to permit donations. If supply exceeds demand in present conditions, there is no reason to permit the additional risk. If it does not, there may or may not be reason to permit the additional risk, depending on the result of further analysis as in step 3.

Just a thought.