Is there a right to donate blood? Patient rights; donor responsibilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to analyse and assess critically whether there is a right to donate blood in the UK. The aim was to provide a basis for blood services, in particular within the UK and European Union (EU), to address claims from deferred donors that there is a right to donate. Recent and ongoing campaigns to change the current life-long deferral from blood donation in the UK, Canada and USA of men who have/have had sex with men (MSM) have highlighted issues over whether individuals have a right to donate blood. The issue is complicated by allegations of discriminatory behaviour, and in some countries politicians have contributed to the argument. As anti-discrimination and equality legislation is strengthened in the UK, other groups in addition to MSM may wish to claim a right to donate blood. The methods adopted included discussions with colleagues in UK and European blood services and a review of the medical literature and wider sources using Internet search engines. No clear right to donate blood is apparent, although it is recommended that donor deferral criteria should have a sound basis of evidence. Potential donors have a right to expect a clear explanation of the reason(s) for refusing a donation. Legal safeguards for recipients to receive safe blood transfusions exist. It is concluded that blood recipients in the EU have a right to receive safe blood, and that this should be viewed as the overriding responsibility of blood services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".