States race to regulate blood donation labeling for mRNA vaccines, sparking debate between patient choice advocates and medical organizations concerned about blood supply impact.
The story
Ever wonder why states are rushing to pass new bills about blood donations and mRNA labeling? It’s become quite the hot topic, especially when it comes to giving people choices about their blood transfusions.
Take Illinois, for example. They’re looking at a bill that would make blood donors tell if they’ve had vaccines, and blood banks would need to test for vaccine components. They’d have to label blood that shows signs of these components or comes from vaccinated donors.
Kentucky jumped in too, though their story’s interesting. They started with a bill that would have said no to blood from COVID-vaccinated folks, but the person behind it, Rep. Massaroni, says that wasn’t meant to happen. She wants to fix it to focus more on giving patients more information and choices.
Idaho and Utah are thinking about similar rules too.
The Red Cross and other big health groups aren’t too happy about this. They say there’s no proof that vaccinated blood is unsafe, and these rules could make it super hard to keep enough blood on hand – especially since most donors [like 96%] have COVID antibodies.
Some people love these bills, saying they give people more control over their healthcare. Others worry they’ll cause chaos and might lead to other odd rules down the road.
What do you think? Should we know more about what’s in donated blood, or are these bills solving a problem that doesn’t exist? Your state might be next to decide.
Recent Comments