SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah is considering changes to its B.Y.O.B. rules, but not in the way many might expect. The state Legislature has redefined the acronym to stand for “Bring Your Own Blood,” sparking discussion in the medical community. A bill passed in the state House on Wednesday with unanimous support, despite reservations from the American Red Cross.
The proposed legislation would mandate that health care facilities in Utah allow patients to use their own blood for procedures or select their own donors. This move challenges the current practice where hospitals and blood collectors, like the American Red Cross, have authority to determine the suitability of using a patient’s own blood or that of a designated donor. The bill’s sponsor, a vocal critic of vaccines, argues that patients should have more autonomy in their medical choices.
While directed blood donations, involving a patient’s acquaintance providing blood for their treatment, are permitted under federal law, the bill aims to streamline the process and prioritize patient choice. Concerns over vaccine fears during the COVID-19 pandemic have led to an uptick in requests for directed donations, which some medical professionals deem unnecessary.
The Republican-backed proposal, now awaiting Senate review, aims to prevent health providers in Utah from blocking patients from using their own blood, with exceptions for emergencies. Hospitals would not be held liable for any adverse outcomes resulting from this practice.
Similar measures are being discussed in Texas and have been proposed in prior legislative sessions in Iowa and Kentucky, without success. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kristen Chevrier, highlighted the importance of patients’ requests for directed blood donation, emphasizing the seriousness of their situations.
Critics, including the American Red Cross, raise concerns about potential strain on resources and negative impacts on patient care, should this bill become law. They caution that prioritizing patient preferences over medical necessity could hinder the delivery of essential blood supplies to those in critical need.
As the debate continues, medical experts emphasize the importance of evidence-based decision-making and stress the need to prioritize public health benefits over individual preferences.
Parra cautioned that directed donations pose a higher risk compared to the general community blood supply. He expressed concern that family and friends may feel compelled to donate without full disclosure of their health history, thereby increasing the chances of the recipient contracting an infectious disease. Despite lacking evidence that patients can choose safer donors than those provided by the volunteer blood system, some residents emphasized the importance of having this option. Gayle Ruzicka stated, “When it comes to something as personal as our healthcare, especially when it involves our own blood, the ability to choose should always be available.”
