Causas de rechazo de donantes de sangre de un hospital del sur peruano / Reasons for blood donor deferral in a Southern Peruvian hospital

Introducción: La donación de sangre salva vidas, por lo que la seguridad de la sangre es lo más importante de todo el proceso. La localización demográfica conduce a tener causas específicas de diferimiento. Vivir en zonas altoandinas produciría cambios adaptativos hematológicos. Es por esta razón que resulta importante conocer las causas de rechazo y así poder reorientar los programas de promoción de donación de sangre. Objetivo: Determinar las causas de rechazo de donantes de sangre de un hospital del sur peruano a 3825 m. s. n. m. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio transversal, de corte retrospectivo, sobre las causas de rechazo de posibles donantes de sangre del Hospital III EsSalud, Juliaca. Se analizaron los registros de predonantes que fueron rechazados, desde enero del 2014 a diciembre del 2018. Los datos se analizaron en el programa STATA v.14. Resultados: De los posibles predonantes seleccionados (4057), 1699 (41,87 por ciento) fueron mujeres y 2358 (58,13 por ciento) fueron varones. Fueron diferidos 1458 (41,87 por ciento), los varones tuvieron la tasa de rechazo más alta 882 (60,49 por ciento) en comparación con las mujeres 576 (39,51 por ciento). La polieritrocitemia fue la causa más frecuente de rechazo 669 (45,8 por ciento). Conclusiones: La tasa de rechazo fue moderada (35,93 por ciento) y la principal causa, fue el hematocrito alto (68,4 por ciento), seguido por el bajo (6,8 por ciento).

Introduction: Blood donation saves lives. Blood safety is thus the most important factor throughout the whole process. Demographic location accounts for specific reasons for deferral. Living in high Andean areas causes adaptive hematological changes. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the reasons for deferral with a view to reorienting blood donation promotion programs. Objective: Determine the reasons for blood donor deferral in a Southern Peruvian hospital 3 935 m amsl. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted of the reasons for deferral of potential blood donors in EsSalud III Hospital in Juliaca. An analysis was performed of the records of pre-donors deferred from January 2014 to December 2018. The data were processed with the software STATA version 14. Results: Of the potential pre-donors selected (4 057), 1 699 (41.87 percent) were women and 2 358 (58.13 percent) were men. A total 1 458 (41.87 percent) were deferred. Men had the highest deferral rate with 882 (60.49 percent), whereas the rate for women was 576 (39.51 percent). Polyerythrocythemia was the most common reason for deferral with 669 (45.8 percent). Conclusions: The deferral rate was moderate (35.93 percent) and the main reason was high hematocrit (68.4 percent), followed by low hematocrit (6.8 percent)(AU)

When are infection risks of blood transfusion tolerable? Towards understanding the ethical views of stakeholders in the blood supply.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The perception of transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs) is sensitive to various concerns besides the probability and impact of infection, and some of these concerns may be ethically relevant. This paper aims to advance thinking about blood safety policies by exploring and explaining stakeholders' reasons to consider TTI risks tolerable or intolerable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inspired by critical empirical ethics and phenomenological hermeneutics, we held interviews and focus group discussions to explore the moral experience of policymakers, hematologists, blood donors and recipients. Respondents were invited to discuss general concerns about the blood supply, to address the tolerability of TTI risks compared with other hazards and to comment on the costs of blood safety. Arguments for tolerance or intolerance towards TTI risks were analysed qualitatively. RESULTS: Stakeholders' views could be clustered into seven categories: (1) clinical impact; (2) probability of infection; (3) avoidability of infection; (4) cost and health benefits; (5) other consequences of safety measures; (6) non-consequentialist ethical arguments; and (7) stakeholders' interests. Various arguments were offered that resonate with current ethical thinking about blood safety. Assuming that resources spent on inefficient blood safety measures could be applied more beneficially elsewhere, for example, responders typically expressed tolerance towards TTI risks. Some other arguments seem novel, for instance arguments for risk intolerance based on the low probability of infection and arguments for risk tolerance if patients have a poor prognosis. CONCLUSION: Understanding the moral experience of stakeholders enriches ethical debate about blood safety and prepares developing more widely acceptable policies.

Donor blood screening and moral responsibility: how safe should blood be?

Some screening tests for donor blood that are used by blood services to prevent transfusion-transmission of infectious diseases offer relatively few health benefits for the resources spent on them. Can good ethical arguments be provided for employing these tests nonetheless? This paper discusses-and ultimately rejects-three such arguments. According to the 'rule of rescue' argument, general standards for cost-effectiveness in healthcare may be ignored when rescuing identifiable individuals. The argument fails in this context, however, because we cannot identify beforehand who will benefit from additional blood screening tests. On the 'imposed risk' argument, general cost-effectiveness standards do not apply when healthcare interventions impose risks on patients. This argument ignores the fact that imposing risks on patients is inevitable in healthcare and that these risks can be countered only within reasonable limits. Finally, the 'manufacturing standard' argument premises that general cost-effectiveness standards do not apply to procedures preventing the contamination of manufactured medical products. We contend that while this argument seems reasonable insofar as commercially manufactured medical products are concerned, publicly funded blood screening tests should respect the standards for general healthcare. We conclude that these particular arguments are unpersuasive, and we offer directions to advance the debate.

Are there ethical differences between stopping and not starting blood safety measures?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Concern with the costs of blood safety is growing, which raises the question whether safety measures that reduce risk only marginally should be discontinued. Withdrawing such safety measures would allow reallocating resources to more efficient health care interventions, but it might raise moral objections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluates two ethical arguments why discontinuing blood safety measures would be more objectionable than not implementing them. The first argument is that whereas withdrawing protective measures causes harm to patients, not starting protective measures 'merely' omits to prevent harm. The second argument is that patients who benefit from protective measures are historically entitled to the continuation of those protective measures. RESULTS: Both arguments are unconvincing. There is only a weak causal connection between removing blood safety measures and harms that transfusion recipients suffer. Moreover, patients are not entitled to the continuation of protective measures that prove very inefficient, unless applying these protective measures rectifies past injustice towards them. CONCLUSION: Unless stronger ethical objections can be found, blood system operators and regulators should be more willing to withdraw inefficient safety measures.

The Precautionary Principle and the Tolerability of Blood Transfusion Risks.

Tolerance for blood transfusion risks is very low, as evidenced by the implementation of expensive blood tests and the rejection of gay men as blood donors. Is this low risk tolerance supported by the precautionary principle, as defenders of such policies claim? We discuss three constraints on applying (any version of) the precautionary principle and show that respecting these implies tolerating certain risks. Consistency means that the precautionary principle cannot prescribe precautions that it must simultaneously forbid taking, considering the harms they might cause. Avoiding counterproductivity requires rejecting precautions that cause more harm than they prevent. Proportionality forbids taking precautions that are more harmful than adequate alternatives. When applying these constraints, we argue, attention should not be restricted to harms that are human caused or that affect human health or the environment. Tolerating transfusion risks can be justified if available precautions have serious side effects, such as high social or economic costs.

[Blood transfusion and homosexuality: Ethical considerations]. / Transfusion et homosexualité : enjeux éthiques.

Since the context of the contaminated blood affair in 1983, the homosexual male were excluded from the blood donation in France. This exclusion is often called into question in several countries and is an actual lively debate. In France, reform process is ongoing for a practical change. Three issues make up the discussion: the infectious risk bound to sexual behavior, the feasibility of the powerful biological tests but having a silent window and the protection of the blood recipient. The infectious risk in the homosexual male is higher for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) than in the rest of the population. Even if every person has his/her own individual risk depending on his/her habits, everyone is confronted to the same law. The challenge is to build a consensus, along with the precautionary principle, the non-discrimination policy, and the individual and collective responsibilities.

[Blood components: Are they drugs or special medicines?]. / Les produits sanguins thérapeutiques : des médicaments ou des produits de santé à part ?

Blood transfusion and plasma derived-drugs significantly differ from other medicines in that their availability strictly depends on blood and plasma collected from healthy donors. Blood collection must comply with a double objective: to maintain donor heath safety, and to avoid any transmitted infections in recipients. This raises several ethical concerns that appear to be different from usual ethical and deontological issues linked to other pharmaceutical and industrial processes. The main concern is the non-commercialization of the human body. Words and concept are of major importance in this context. This short review aims at presenting the main issues relevant to those questions with respect to the various stakeholders.

[Should we review, on ethical grounds, the conditions of access of men who have sex with men to blood donation?]. / Doit-on revoir, sur des bases éthiques, les conditions d'accès à des hommes ayant eu des relations sexuelles avec des hommes au don du sang ?

In France, men who have sex with men (MSM) were "permanently deferred" of blood donation. This measure reflected the fact that according to scientific research data, MSM have a higher risk to be infected notably by the human immunodeficiency virus. This "permanent postponement" was the subject of much debate as discrimination criterion. Can ethics be the basis for the reexamination of conditions of access of MSM to blood donation? It seems that ethics can and should in fact be reconvened in the reflections. The donor selection criteria should be regularly reviewed in the light of emerging risks. The exclusion must be reexamined, questioned again, remembering the reality and not enclosing blood transfusion in a secure dynamic unsuited to the reality of the risk. Also, it appears capital to keep the debate in mind, far exceeding that of blood donation to involve more that a legitimate search for equality and justice in a society. The debate must take account of these elements of reality, without leave to fascinate at the risk of providing an unadjusted answer to the original problem. Ethics seems to invite us in these discussions as they show the axes of reflection or problematization channels. Far from closing the debate, it opens the latter to new areas and participates in the advance of ideas, thus constituting a main actor.

Who should donate blood? Policy decisions on donor deferral criteria should protect recipients and be fair to donors.

An important element in the development of voluntary blood donation schemes throughout the world has been the attention given to minimising the risk to recipients of donated blood, primarily the risk of transfusion transmitted infections. In response to the appearance of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the 1980s a range of national policies emerged that excluded populations at high risk of contracting HIV from donating blood, with a particular focus on men who have sex with men (MSM), the primary reason being the protection of recipients of donated blood. Recently some countries, including the UK, have revised their policies, informed by advances in screening tests, epidemiological evidence of transmission rates and an increasing concern about unfair discrimination of specific groups in society. Policy makers face a difficult task of balancing safety of recipients; an adequate blood supply for those who require transfusion; and societal/legal obligations to treat everyone fairly. Given that no transfusion is risk free, the question is what degree of risk is acceptable in order to meet the needs of recipients and society. Decisions about acceptance of risk are complex and policy makers who set acceptable risk levels must provide ethically justifiable reasons for their decisions. We suggest it is possible to provide a set of reasons that stakeholders could agree are relevant based on careful evaluation of the evidence of all relevant risks and explicit acknowledgement of other morally relevant values. We describe using such a process in the Safety of Blood Tissue and Organs (SaBTO) review of donor deferral criteria related to sexual behaviour.

[Ethics and blood transfusion]. / Éthique et transfusion sanguine.

Blood donation is an act of solidarity. Most often, this act is done on a volunteer basis and, depending on countries and circumstances, is not remunerated. The increase in need, the always-greater number of deferral criteria, the safety issues and the changes in the structures of our societies are among the many subjects for ethical debates. Taking these into account, the actors of the transfusion must analyze certain parameters: the value of a donation, the meaning of volunteering, the appropriateness of remunerating the act of giving a part of one's self, no longer as a donation or an expression of altruism and solidarity, but as a commercial act regimented by economic laws.

Proceedings of a consensus conference: Risk-Based Decision Making for Blood Safety.

Blood safety decision making has become increasingly complex, and a framework for risk-based decision making is, thus, needed. The purpose of this consensus conference was to bring together international experts in an effort to develop the foundations for such a framework. These proceedings are described with a view to making available to the transfusion medicine community the considerable amount of information and insight that was presented and that emerged through debate by the experts, panel members, and delegates.