This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

J. Garrott Allen, MD
Stanford University Medical Center Stanford, Calif

JAMA. 1970;211(13):2156.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

There is much reason to believe that commercial blood carries 10 to 25 times the risk of serum hepatitis over that found when blood from volunteer donors is used. The article by Walsh et al (211:261, 1970) calls this especially to our attention, pointing out their experience of 42 cases of hepatitis among 82 recipients when commercial blood was used, and no cases among 28 recipients of volunteer blood. This finding has been repeatedly observed by these authors and many others, including those from Seattle also writing on open-heart surgery and hepatitis (Ann Surg 170:833, 1969). This has been called to the attention of the Division of Biologics Standard for several years to no avail.

One may question one's obligation to participate in any blood program which does not guarantee the donor the same high-quality, low-risk blood that he himself voluntarily provided. Although many efforts . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?