2025年对直接献血的医学、社会和伦理考虑。

IF 19.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jeremy W Jacobs, Garrett S Booth, Mithya Lewis-Newby, Nabiha H Saifee, Eamonn Ferguson, Claudia S Cohn, Meghan Delaney, Sarah Morley, Stephen Thomas, Rachel Thorpe, Sheharyar Raza, Meaghann S Weaver, Jennifer S Woo, Deva Sharma, Cynthia So-Osman, Nalan Yurtsever, Christopher A Tormey, Allison Waters, Mindy Goldman, Matthew T S Yan, Ross M Fasano, Laura D Stephens, Elizabeth S Allen, Christian Erikstrup, Laura Infanti, Timothy D Schlafer, Matthew A Warner, Jeffrey L Winters, Aaron A R Tobian, Evan M Bloch
{"title":"2025年对直接献血的医学、社会和伦理考虑。","authors":"Jeremy W Jacobs, Garrett S Booth, Mithya Lewis-Newby, Nabiha H Saifee, Eamonn Ferguson, Claudia S Cohn, Meghan Delaney, Sarah Morley, Stephen Thomas, Rachel Thorpe, Sheharyar Raza, Meaghann S Weaver, Jennifer S Woo, Deva Sharma, Cynthia So-Osman, Nalan Yurtsever, Christopher A Tormey, Allison Waters, Mindy Goldman, Matthew T S Yan, Ross M Fasano, Laura D Stephens, Elizabeth S Allen, Christian Erikstrup, Laura Infanti, Timothy D Schlafer, Matthew A Warner, Jeffrey L Winters, Aaron A R Tobian, Evan M Bloch","doi":"10.7326/ANNALS-25-00815","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the United States and other high-income countries, blood donation primarily relies on anonymous, voluntary donors. However, directed blood donation-where people donate for a specific recipient-has resurged, particularly due to misinformation surrounding COVID-19 vaccination. Requests for \"nonvaccinated\" blood, driven by misconceptions about vaccine safety, have led to legislative attempts to mandate compliance. Historically, directed donation was used to mitigate the risk for transfusion-related infections before modern screening techniques rendered it largely unnecessary. Today, it presents important patient safety risks, including increased infectious disease transmission, immunologic complications, and logistic burdens. Directed donations also introduce inefficiencies, diverting resources from the community blood supply and exacerbating shortages. Moreover, directed donation for nonmedical indications lacks scientific justification. Blood safety is ensured through rigorous donor screening, pathogen testing, and processing measures. There is no evidence that blood from vaccinated donors poses risk. Requests for nonvaccinated blood, as well as other directed donation preferences based on personal beliefs, introduce biases that are not grounded in medical necessity. Accommodating such requests undermines public trust in blood safety protocols and legitimizes unfounded fears. Ethical concerns arise as non-medically justified requests reinforce discriminatory practices, such as selecting donors based on race or gender. Allowing such preferences risks politicizing blood donation, spreading misinformation, and straining health care systems. Although autonomy is a core ethical principle in medicine, it does not justify non-evidence-based interventions. Given the potential harm and societal impact, directed blood donations should be limited to rare, medically necessary cases. Ongoing legislative efforts to mandate these requests require unified opposition from the medical and scientific community to uphold ethical, evidence-based, blood allocation practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":7932,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":19.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medical, Societal, and Ethical Considerations for Directed Blood Donation in 2025.\",\"authors\":\"Jeremy W Jacobs, Garrett S Booth, Mithya Lewis-Newby, Nabiha H Saifee, Eamonn Ferguson, Claudia S Cohn, Meghan Delaney, Sarah Morley, Stephen Thomas, Rachel Thorpe, Sheharyar Raza, Meaghann S Weaver, Jennifer S Woo, Deva Sharma, Cynthia So-Osman, Nalan Yurtsever, Christopher A Tormey, Allison Waters, Mindy Goldman, Matthew T S Yan, Ross M Fasano, Laura D Stephens, Elizabeth S Allen, Christian Erikstrup, Laura Infanti, Timothy D Schlafer, Matthew A Warner, Jeffrey L Winters, Aaron A R Tobian, Evan M Bloch\",\"doi\":\"10.7326/ANNALS-25-00815\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In the United States and other high-income countries, blood donation primarily relies on anonymous, voluntary donors. However, directed blood donation-where people donate for a specific recipient-has resurged, particularly due to misinformation surrounding COVID-19 vaccination. Requests for \\\"nonvaccinated\\\" blood, driven by misconceptions about vaccine safety, have led to legislative attempts to mandate compliance. Historically, directed donation was used to mitigate the risk for transfusion-related infections before modern screening techniques rendered it largely unnecessary. Today, it presents important patient safety risks, including increased infectious disease transmission, immunologic complications, and logistic burdens. Directed donations also introduce inefficiencies, diverting resources from the community blood supply and exacerbating shortages. Moreover, directed donation for nonmedical indications lacks scientific justification. Blood safety is ensured through rigorous donor screening, pathogen testing, and processing measures. There is no evidence that blood from vaccinated donors poses risk. Requests for nonvaccinated blood, as well as other directed donation preferences based on personal beliefs, introduce biases that are not grounded in medical necessity. Accommodating such requests undermines public trust in blood safety protocols and legitimizes unfounded fears. Ethical concerns arise as non-medically justified requests reinforce discriminatory practices, such as selecting donors based on race or gender. Allowing such preferences risks politicizing blood donation, spreading misinformation, and straining health care systems. Although autonomy is a core ethical principle in medicine, it does not justify non-evidence-based interventions. Given the potential harm and societal impact, directed blood donations should be limited to rare, medically necessary cases. Ongoing legislative efforts to mandate these requests require unified opposition from the medical and scientific community to uphold ethical, evidence-based, blood allocation practices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Internal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":19.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Internal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00815\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00815","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国和其他高收入国家,献血主要依靠匿名自愿献血者。然而,定向献血——人们为特定的接受者献血——已经复苏,特别是由于围绕COVID-19疫苗接种的错误信息。由于对疫苗安全性的误解,对“未接种”血液的要求导致立法机构试图强制遵守。从历史上看,在现代筛查技术使其基本上没有必要之前,直接捐赠被用于减轻输血相关感染的风险。今天,它带来了重要的患者安全风险,包括传染病传播增加、免疫并发症和后勤负担。定向献血还会导致效率低下,转移社区血液供应的资源,并加剧短缺。此外,针对非医学适应症的直接捐赠缺乏科学依据。通过严格的献血者筛选、病原体检测和处理措施,确保了血液安全。没有证据表明来自接种疫苗的献血者的血液有风险。要求提供未接种疫苗的血液,以及基于个人信仰的其他直接捐赠偏好,会引入与医疗需要无关的偏见。满足这些要求破坏了公众对血液安全规程的信任,并使毫无根据的恐惧合法化。由于非医学上合理的请求加强了歧视性做法,例如根据种族或性别选择捐助者,因此出现了伦理问题。允许这种偏好可能会使献血政治化,传播错误信息,并使卫生保健系统紧张。尽管自主是医学的核心伦理原则,但它并不能证明无证据干预是正当的。鉴于潜在的危害和社会影响,定向献血应限于罕见的、医学上必要的病例。正在进行的授权这些要求的立法努力需要得到医学界和科学界的一致反对,以维护合乎道德、循证的血液分配做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Medical, Societal, and Ethical Considerations for Directed Blood Donation in 2025.

In the United States and other high-income countries, blood donation primarily relies on anonymous, voluntary donors. However, directed blood donation-where people donate for a specific recipient-has resurged, particularly due to misinformation surrounding COVID-19 vaccination. Requests for "nonvaccinated" blood, driven by misconceptions about vaccine safety, have led to legislative attempts to mandate compliance. Historically, directed donation was used to mitigate the risk for transfusion-related infections before modern screening techniques rendered it largely unnecessary. Today, it presents important patient safety risks, including increased infectious disease transmission, immunologic complications, and logistic burdens. Directed donations also introduce inefficiencies, diverting resources from the community blood supply and exacerbating shortages. Moreover, directed donation for nonmedical indications lacks scientific justification. Blood safety is ensured through rigorous donor screening, pathogen testing, and processing measures. There is no evidence that blood from vaccinated donors poses risk. Requests for nonvaccinated blood, as well as other directed donation preferences based on personal beliefs, introduce biases that are not grounded in medical necessity. Accommodating such requests undermines public trust in blood safety protocols and legitimizes unfounded fears. Ethical concerns arise as non-medically justified requests reinforce discriminatory practices, such as selecting donors based on race or gender. Allowing such preferences risks politicizing blood donation, spreading misinformation, and straining health care systems. Although autonomy is a core ethical principle in medicine, it does not justify non-evidence-based interventions. Given the potential harm and societal impact, directed blood donations should be limited to rare, medically necessary cases. Ongoing legislative efforts to mandate these requests require unified opposition from the medical and scientific community to uphold ethical, evidence-based, blood allocation practices.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Internal Medicine
Annals of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
23.90
自引率
1.80%
发文量
1136
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians (ACP), Annals of Internal Medicine is the premier internal medicine journal. Annals of Internal Medicine’s mission is to promote excellence in medicine, enable physicians and other health care professionals to be well informed members of the medical community and society, advance standards in the conduct and reporting of medical research, and contribute to improving the health of people worldwide. To achieve this mission, the journal publishes a wide variety of original research, review articles, practice guidelines, and commentary relevant to clinical practice, health care delivery, public health, health care policy, medical education, ethics, and research methodology. In addition, the journal publishes personal narratives that convey the feeling and the art of medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信