Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!princeton!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP
Newsgroups: soc.motss,sci.med
Subject: Re: Blood, Personal Rights, and Freedom
Message-ID: <6373@alice.uUCp>
Date: Fri, 21-Nov-86 10:46:30 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.6373
Posted: Fri Nov 21 10:46:30 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Nov-86 20:37:13 EST
References: <2569@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 24
Xref: mnetor soc.motss:456 sci.med:291

In article <2569@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, bzs@bu-cs.UUCP writes:
> 
> From: ark@alice.UUCP
> >The obvious response to a policy of giving the government names
> >of blood donors who test positive for HIV, etc. is simply to stop
> >donating blood.  If enough people do this, the policy will change.
> 
> I thought the point was that blood which was not "donated" was being
> tested also, I presume what they meant was that if I go in for a test
> for, oh I dunno, diabetes (blood sugar) that they'll test a portion of
> my blood for HIV and, if positive, send that result to some bureaucrat
> who will make sure only the wrong people will have access to that
> information.

No, I don't think that was the point of the original article.

Remember that the article discussed the Red Cross, which, so far
as I know, basically collects blood for later use in surgery, etc.

Of course (and this may be relevant), I believe that many states
have laws that anyone who is admitted to a hospital for any
reason must have a blood test for syphillis, etc.  I suspect
it's only a matter of time before HIV testing is similarly
required as well.