Reduction of post-transfusion hepatitis by exclusion of Australia antigen from donor blood in an urban public hospital

1974 ◽  
Vol 267 (3) ◽  
pp. 171-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN R. SENIOR ◽  
ALTON I. SUTNICK ◽  
EUGENE GOESER ◽  
W. THOMAS LONDON ◽  
MIRIAM B. DAHLKE ◽  
...  
1982 ◽  
Vol 307 (21) ◽  
pp. 1315-1321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark C. Hornbrook ◽  
Roger Y. Dodd ◽  
Philip Jacobs ◽  
Leonard I. Friedman ◽  
Kenneth E. Sherman

1979 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Stan N. Finkelstein ◽  
Harvey M. Sapolsky

AbstractA 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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document