title: [Giving blood: an individual right or the expression of a social responsibility? The donors' position in the debates on blood transfusion].
abstract: This debate questions the donor's position within the transfusional framework. How are blood donation regulations initiated and implemented? Experts called upon this question insist on the necessity to better inform about such regulations so that they can be rapidly approved and in order to keep donors from adverse reactions linked to blood donations. How to make donors' rejections more tolerable? Contra-indications are a source of anxiety for the person whose blood sample is not accepted. While blood transfusion has never been safer in the past than it is today in wealthy countries, one should ask the question whether the donor is or not the victim of doubts still weighing down on this activity. Implementing the precautionary principle may indeed lead transfusion supervisors to take brutal decisions detrimental to the donor, seeming rather inspired by political or media pressures than calling on scientific or economic rigorous principles. What does the donor selection aim at in terms of prevention and public health? What about the renewal of donor associations' directors? Where are we at with the homosexual rejection trends? Such are the issues as those induced by the current debate.
authors.affiliation: CSO-CNRS, 19, rue Amélie, 75007 Paris, France. b.bastard@cso.cnrs.fr
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Bastard
mesh_terms: D001782:Blood Donors / Q000523:psychology*; D001803:Blood Transfusion / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000523:psychology*; D018562:Disease Transmission, Infectious / Q000517:prevention & control; D034462:Dissent and Disputes; D006716:Homosexuality; D006806:Human Rights; D006801:Humans; D017053:Infection Control / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000379:methods; D009042:Motivation; D010565:Persuasive Communication; D012059:Rejection, Psychology; D012941:Social Responsibility