Anonymous
20 years ago
THIS HAPPENED BECAUSE OF "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" WAS MORE IMPORTANT
THAN "STIGMATIZING" INFECTED HOMO BLOOD DONORS
Physicians and lawyers affiliated with the CRCS reacted strongly
against the drafting of a questionnaire that ignored risk factors for
the disease in order to conform with League anti-discrimination
principles. Michael Worsoff, the lawyer for the CRCS, was asked at a
March 29, 1983 meeting of the AIDS Working Group, "What would be the
legal aspects if an issue is made of the right of donors to give
blood?"149 He responded:
It is not a matter of the donor having a right to donate blood.
Rather, it is a case of the Red Cross having both a moral and legal
obligation to assure the safety of the blood it accepts for processing
and distribution. The evidence of possible unacceptability of the blood
does not have to be conclusive, the decision can be made on a basis of
'reasonable doubt' as to its suitability. With reference to the AIDS
problem in particular, the premise is not that the CRC has to justify
beyond any scientific doubt that there is a link between designated
'high risk groups' and the development of AIDS since, if there is even
a possibility of transmission via blood, the CRC has the moral and
legal obligation to protect the recipient above all.150
Despite Worsoff's legal advice, which favored protecting the blood
supply and using appropriate screening criteria, the CRCS ultimately
decided to use questionnaires that did not mention AIDS, associated
[*pg 255] symptoms, or known risk factors.151 Although doctors
implemented screening measures independent of CRCS, it was not until
1985 that the CRCS implemented prevention mechanisms, including donor
screening, and changed the questionnaires to "include symptom-specific
questions."152 Surrogate screening, using Hepatitis B test results to
predict HIV positivity, was never among the measures implemented in
Canada.153 By this time, however, HIV had permeated the blood supply.
HIV seroprevalence was 56% among hemophiliacs in Montreal; this number
increased to 74% by 1988.154 A study of blood donors in Toronto
estimated HIV seropositivity at 0.37% -- one out of every 370 donors
may have been infected.155 Because of the CRCS's delay in implementing
prevention strategies, between 900 and 1400 individuals who received
blood transfusions were infected with HIV.156
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
THAN "STIGMATIZING" INFECTED HOMO BLOOD DONORS
Physicians and lawyers affiliated with the CRCS reacted strongly
against the drafting of a questionnaire that ignored risk factors for
the disease in order to conform with League anti-discrimination
principles. Michael Worsoff, the lawyer for the CRCS, was asked at a
March 29, 1983 meeting of the AIDS Working Group, "What would be the
legal aspects if an issue is made of the right of donors to give
blood?"149 He responded:
It is not a matter of the donor having a right to donate blood.
Rather, it is a case of the Red Cross having both a moral and legal
obligation to assure the safety of the blood it accepts for processing
and distribution. The evidence of possible unacceptability of the blood
does not have to be conclusive, the decision can be made on a basis of
'reasonable doubt' as to its suitability. With reference to the AIDS
problem in particular, the premise is not that the CRC has to justify
beyond any scientific doubt that there is a link between designated
'high risk groups' and the development of AIDS since, if there is even
a possibility of transmission via blood, the CRC has the moral and
legal obligation to protect the recipient above all.150
Despite Worsoff's legal advice, which favored protecting the blood
supply and using appropriate screening criteria, the CRCS ultimately
decided to use questionnaires that did not mention AIDS, associated
[*pg 255] symptoms, or known risk factors.151 Although doctors
implemented screening measures independent of CRCS, it was not until
1985 that the CRCS implemented prevention mechanisms, including donor
screening, and changed the questionnaires to "include symptom-specific
questions."152 Surrogate screening, using Hepatitis B test results to
predict HIV positivity, was never among the measures implemented in
Canada.153 By this time, however, HIV had permeated the blood supply.
HIV seroprevalence was 56% among hemophiliacs in Montreal; this number
increased to 74% by 1988.154 A study of blood donors in Toronto
estimated HIV seropositivity at 0.37% -- one out of every 370 donors
may have been infected.155 Because of the CRCS's delay in implementing
prevention strategies, between 900 and 1400 individuals who received
blood transfusions were infected with HIV.156
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.