SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah may soon loosen its B.Y.O.B. rules, but not in the way some might hope. The acronym has taken on a new meaning in the state Legislature: “Bring Your Own Blood.”
Health care facilities in Utah would be required to let patients use their own blood for procedures or choose their own donor under a bill that passed the state House with unanimous support Wednesday, despite concerns from the American Red Cross.
Directed donations, which typically involve a patient’s friend or family member giving blood for their procedure, are allowed under federal law. But the requests undergo a rigorous screening process that the bill's sponsor, an outspoken opponent of vaccines, said does not give patients enough personal choice in their medical decisions.
Hospitals and blood collectors like the American Red Cross currently have broad discretion to decide whether it's safe and feasible for a patient to use their own blood or that of a chosen donor. Many facilities saw a rise in requests during the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns about vaccine transmission that medical professionals say are unfounded.
The Republican proposal, which now heads to the Senate, makes it so Utah health providers can no longer block someone from supplying their own blood, except in emergencies. Hospitals would not be liable for any injuries or deaths that may result from using the blood.
Similar legislation is being considered in Texas and was floated in past legislative sessions in Iowa and Kentucky, but did not pass.
“This bill was brought to me by patients who have requested to use directed blood donation, including their own blood, at Utah hospitals and have been denied,” said freshman Rep. Kristen Chevrier, the bill's sponsor. “Their situations are serious and delicate.”
The Republican from Highland argued patients should be able to receive blood from people they trust, rather than go through blood banks that do not disclose to patients their donor's medical history.
Before her election to the Legislature, Chevrier led multiple anti-vaccine organizations that warned against taking COVID-19 shots and fought against vaccination requirements imposed by schools and employers. She and other supporters have acknowledged that the bill would let patients who are wary of COVID-19 vaccines handpick donors with a similarly unvaccinated status.
According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, justification for such requests “is not supported by any medical or scientific evidence.” Vaccine components do not replicate through blood transfusions or alter a blood recipient's DNA, meaning an unvaccinated patient could not receive the COVID-19 vaccine via a vaccinated donor's blood.
Requests to use blood from a known donor are often driven by a patient’s preference rather than a medical need, said Daniel Parra of the American Red Cross, the largest blood collector in Utah. An increase in those requests would divert resources away from those requiring lifesaving care, he cautioned.
“This bill would create unnecessary and harmful impacts on the delivery of lifesaving blood to patients,” Parra told The Associated Press. “While this bill may be well-intentioned, it offers no public health benefit and could negatively impact patient care.”
Kristina Pexton, a blood transfusion specialist at a Utah hospital, told lawmakers at a recent committee hearing that she worried the bill would place a strain on the system.
Directed donations also carry a greater risk than the community blood supply, Parra warned. Family and friends may feel pressure to donate and might not be fully transparent about their health history, which he said increases the risk of the recipient contracting an infectious disease.
There is no evidence that patients can select safer donors than the volunteer blood system provides. Still, several residents told lawmakers the choice was important to them.
“Something so personal as our health care, something that is especially as personal as blood, we should always have that choice,” said Gayle Ruzicka.
Hannah Schoenbaum, The Associated Press
