Finkelstein S N, Sapolsky H M
Am J Law Med. 1979 Spring;5(1):1-9.
A federal requirement that donor blood be labelled as either "paid" or "volunteer" took effect on May 15, 1978. A major rationale for requiring such labelling is that physicians, now that they can distinguish between categories of blood, will fear liability for post-transfusion hepatitis resulting from the use of paid blood. Thus, supporters of the labelling requirement hope that it will deter the use of high-risk commercial blood. Some paid blood, however, is not commercial blood and in fact may be safer than volunteer blood. The labelling strategy for hepatitis control, therefore, has negative as well as positive attributes. This Article considers the efficacy of blood labelling as a hepatitis control measure and proposes an alternative strategy--the periodic publicizing of hepatitis rates of facilities that perform transfusions--that, if practiced responsibly, could significantly decrease hepatitis transmission rates.
一项关于供血需标明是“有偿”还是“自愿”的联邦规定于1978年5月15日生效。要求进行此类标注的一个主要理由是,既然医生能够区分血液类别,那么他们会担心因使用有偿血液导致输血后肝炎而承担责任。因此,支持标注规定的人希望这将阻止使用高风险的商业血液。然而,一些有偿血液并非商业血液,实际上可能比自愿献血的血液更安全。因此,用于控制肝炎的标注策略既有积极属性,也有消极属性。本文探讨了血液标注作为一种肝炎控制措施的有效性,并提出了一种替代策略——定期公布进行输血操作的机构的肝炎感染率——如果负责任地实施,这一策略能够显著降低肝炎传播率。