Charge them!

Categories: Singapore

Five blood donors had been charged in court for donating AIDS-tainted blood. On the surface this looked draconian. Here we have a good hearted person trying to help a fellow human being by donating his blood only to be charged when the blood was found to be HIV-positive. Why would the health authorities risked scarring away blood donors by highlighting these cases. To answer this question, we need to look into the blood donation process. I had worked in the National Blood Bank previously and therefore quite familiar with the process.

For all potential donors, there are a few steps to be taken before they can donate blood, even for those who are frequent donors. This is necessary so that the blood donated will be as safe as possible to be used for those in need. After the usual weight taking and blood test for the level of hemoglobin, a potential donor is asked a series of questions.

The questionnaire is aimed at filtering out any potential high risk group for disease transmission. The questions covers mainly the sexual history, medical history and travel history. In sexual history, questions includes number of sexual partners and visits to prostitutes. A potential donor is rejected if he has multiple sexual partners or visits to prostitutes. This is because both these habits increases the risk of sexually transmitted disease. Therefore if anyone who had experience such sexual habits, then it is imperative that they tick yes to the questionnaire and the whole blood donation process will end. He will have excluded himself from the whole process. Even if he does not want to tick yes, he may chose to cite that he had changed his mind because he does not want to answer the questionnaire and he will not be allowed to donate blood. There is no question asked as to why he does not want to donate blood. After answering the questionnaire, he will have to sign the questionnaire which states that the answers given are truthful to the best of his knowledge and this make it a legally binding document. I will not explain the other processes that goes through in ensuring the safety of the blood as this is clearly spelled out in the newspaper report.

The catch phrase is truthful to the best of his knowledge. If you knowingly give a false response, then you are lying. However if you genuinely do not know then you are not liable. Therefore the misconception that you are charge for having HIV when you donate blood is a myth. If you genuinely do not know that you have HIV with no history of sexual indiscretion, then you will not be charged in court. A case that happened some years back which unfortunately not reported together with current case will illustrate the real situation.

There was this 19 years old girl who donated blood. After all the questionnaire had been answered, she donated her blood. However after the blood had gone through the mandatory test for HIV, Hepatitis B and C and other sexually transmitted disease, she was unfortunately found to have HIV. An investigation was conducted. She was interviewed to which she admitted that she had sexual relations before but only with one person (the questionnaire asked if more than one sexual partner). She had not other risk factor for sexually transmitted disease. Her boyfriend was brought in to help the investigation. During the course of questioning, it was found that her boyfriend had many sexual partners! So it was her boyfriend who passed the HIV to her. She was not charged because she did not lie in the questionnaire ("to the best of her knowledge").

Hopefully, my article will reassure the public that blood donors are not prosecuted if they are found to have HIV. They are only charged if they did not tell the truth during the questionnaire. Therefore if you are truthful to yourself, then there is no risk of being charged even if you are unfortunately found to have HIV in the process of blood donation.