02016nam a2200301   4500001000800000005001700008007000300025008004100028040000800069041000800077100002900085245008200114300002500196520109200221650001601313650004001329650005301369650001301422650003601435650002501471650002201496650001201518700001901530700001901549700002501568700001801593773010301611ESSALUD20260903150623.0ta      t        pe ||||| |||| 00| 0 spa d  aBMG  aeng  aJacobs, Jeremy W.eAutor  aLegislating medicine — Directed donation and the politics of patient choice  apáginas: 1667-1669  aIn February 2026, members of the Tennessee General Assembly introduced House Bill 2166 (HB 2166, “An Act to Amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, Chapter 32, Relative to Blood Donations”), which would require blood banks and hospitals to comply with directed-donation requests for patients scheduled for medical procedures. Its sponsors framed the bill as protecting patient choice by ensuring that patients have the right to select what is put into their bodies. The paradox is that the U.S. community blood supply is already among the safest in the world, the product of decades of evidence-based practice, universal donor screening, and rigorous infectious disease testing. HB 2166 does not fix a broken system. Instead, it risks undermining one that already functions safely and effectively — which is precisely why this legislation merits attention in domains beyond the blood bank. The bill exemplifies a broader pattern in which politicians seek to legislate medical practice in ways that override scientific consensus while invoking the language of autonomy and choice.  aCORONAVIRUS  aMEDICAMENTOS, DISPOSITIVOS Y LA FDA  aPRESTACIÓN DE SERVICIOS DE ATENCIÓN MÉDICA  aVIH/SIDA  aMEDICINA CLÍNICA HOSPITALARIA  aPOLÍTICA SANITARIA  aDERECHO SANITARIO  aVACUNAS  aZite, Nikki B.  aBrown, Miriam   aOsmundson, Sarah S.   aSharma, Deva 0 022717dMassachusetts NEJM GroupoNEJM016tThe New England Journal of Medicine wESSALUDx0028-4793