And If It Takes Lying: The Ethics of Blood Donor Non-Compliance

Sometimes, people who are otherwise eligible to donate blood are unduly deferred from donating. “Unduly” indicates a gap where a deferral policy misstates what exposes potential donors to risk and so defers more donors than is justified. A number of bioethicists and public health officials have criticized specific deferral policies in order to reformulate or eliminate them. Policy change is undoubtedly the right goal because the policy is what prevents otherwise eligible donors from donating needed blood. But this policy-level focus passes over a largely undiscussed question: if policy change takes time and there is a need for blood now, then what should unduly deferred donors do in the meanwhile? Blood banks and federal agencies recommend that deferred donors donate their time or money until they become eligible, but blood is a non-fungible good: donated cash or volunteered time cannot replace a transfusion. Further, this request ignores the fact that otherwise eligible donors could safely donate their blood in addition to their time and money. If a donor justifiably believes that her blood does not pose a risk to a recipient, but knows that honestly answering a donor questionnaire would unduly defer her, then is she morally justified in lying on the questionnaires in order to donate blood?