This is really interesting. Thanks for the insight on this David. I think its quite a difficult issue when it comes to screening for other people's benefit, especially in emergency situations like the one you've described.
In my opinion and from what I gather screening actually is, it requires that for the condition one is being screened, there is a line of treatment availabe or at least advice in place as to how to deal with it. How then does this apply if one is blind to the fact that they are being screened in the first place, and the person doing the screening does not have the resources to deal with a positive outcome? As in the case of these donors you speak of... Were they aware they were being screened for the 3 conditions you mentioned? Or were they just under the impression they were giving blood and thats it? If they knew the ins and outs, I wonder how many woud actually choose to donate (possibly why the MSF didnt fully inform them? I dont know) and even if so, whether they would want to know the outcome anyway?
In a low income country where facilities and resources for treatment are lacking, as controversial as it may be, I think it is counter intuitive to screen if there's nothing that can be done about a positive outcome. Stress levels, anxiety, and the possibility of social exclusion may be too high a price to pay for such people, especially with the slight chance of false positives and negatives with any screening procedure. In an emergency situation where screening must be done to ensure the safety of another, maybe something like an opt in, opt out type system could operate, in terms of getting results.
