Organ donor rejected....

[John V]

Credit for getting a good source. However...

Blacks/African Americans continue to experience the most severe burden of HIV, compared with other races and ethnicities.

Blacks represent approximately 12% of the U.S. population, but accounted for an estimated 44% of new HIV infections in 2010. 

Do they let black people donate?

First, you need to rule out black MSM and give us the resulting statistics for this to be meaningful.

Second, a correlation with a known mechanism, as in MSM, is much more compelling than a correlation alone...unless you're suggesting that black people spontaneously develop HIV.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Credit for getting a good source. However...


Do they let black people donate?

First, you need to rule out black MSM and give us the resulting statistics for this to be meaningful.

Second, a correlation with a known mechanism, as in MSM, is much more compelling than a correlation alone...unless you're suggesting that black people spontaneously develop HIV.

Why is a correlation with a known mechanism more compelling than correlation alone?

[John V]

Why is a correlation with a known mechanism more compelling than correlation alone?

Because a correlation alone tells us nothing about causation.

[Jacob(smooth)]

That's true. But it tells us about relative risk, which is the point of turning the blood away.

Whether the increased risk is due to behaviours, ethnicity, social background etc doesn't alter the risk at all.

[Minimalist]

Look at the upside. Some fine xtian will probably die waiting for a liver or kidney because of religion's prejudice.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Put it another way.

Homosexual people are more likely to be HIV positive. We deduce that this is because they are more likely to engage in behavior which causes HIV.

Black people are more likely to be HIV positive. We deduce that this is because they are more likely to engage in behaviour which causes HIV.

In terms of whether we should allow them to give blood, why does it matter what exactly those behaviours are?

[Faith No More]

What they ought to do is see if the donor is a genetic match to someone in need, and if he/she is, let the patient know the increase in risk due to sociological factors and let them decide whether it is worth the risk.

[Angrboda]

That gets a serious "WTF?" in my book.

I mean, even if it were true that homosexual males were ten times more likely to be HIV positive, why not test him and find out? It's not like we have a surplus of used organs sitting around.

There's a lag between infection, and infection showing up in testing. For traditional antibody tests the delay can be 3 - 6 months. Some newer tests have less of a delay, but there's still delay.

While I don't necessarily agree with this policy, what's worse is that the virus can remain dormant in an infected individual for as much as a decade.

[John V]

Put it another way.

Homosexual people are more likely to be HIV positive. We deduce that this is because they are more likely to engage in behavior which causes HIV.

Actually, no, that's not the case. Note that they don't say homosexual, which refers to an orientation, but rather MSM, which specifically refers to behavior. A man with homosexual orientation who has not had sex with a man in a long enough time would not be rejected.

Black people are more likely to be HIV positive. We deduce that this is because they are more likely to engage in behaviour which causes HIV.

So why not ask about the behaviors?

Note that I said that having correlation with a known mechanism is more compelling than a correlation alone. I didn't say that correlations alone are worthless or that we can't act on them. Before the mechanisms of smoking and lung cancer were known, the correlations between smoking and cancer were worth action. In this case, if all we knew about HIV were that it was more prevalent in black people, then that could be actionable. But, since we do know about the transmission mechanisms, it makes more sense to use those.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Put it another way.

Homosexual people are more likely to be HIV positive. We deduce that this is because they are more likely to engage in behavior which causes HIV.

Actually, no, that's not the case. Note that they don't say homosexual, which refers to an orientation, but rather MSM, which specifically refers to behavior. A man with homosexual orientation who has not had sex with a man in a long enough time would not be rejected.

Black people are more likely to be HIV positive. We deduce that this is because they are more likely to engage in behaviour which causes HIV.

So why not ask about the behaviors?

Note that I said that having correlation with a known mechanism is more compelling than a correlation alone. I didn't say that correlations alone are worthless or that we can't act on them. Before the mechanisms of smoking and lung cancer were known, the correlations between smoking and cancer were worth action. In this case, if all we knew about HIV were that it was more prevalent in black people, then that could be actionable. But, since we do know about the transmission mechanisms, it makes more sense to use those.

MSM sex isn't the cause of HIV. The cause is unprotected sex with HIV positive people. That can happen in white, black, gay or straight populations.

However I do take your point. It is the behavior which is being asked after rather than the orientation. I do wonder if this is the right behaviour to monitor however, as opposed to "had unprotected sex with multiple partners for eg.