000			02178nam a2200325 4500
001			ESSALUD
005			20260903150623.0
007			ta
008			t pe ||||| |||| 00| 0 spa d
040			_aBMG
041			_aeng
100			_aJacobs, Jeremy W. _eAutor _954569
245			_aLegislating medicine — Directed donation and the politics of patient choice
300			_apáginas: 1667-1669
520			_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.
650			_aCORONAVIRUS _939659
650			_aMEDICAMENTOS, DISPOSITIVOS Y LA FDA _954223
650			_aPRESTACIÓN DE SERVICIOS DE ATENCIÓN MÉDICA _954151
650			_aVIH/SIDA _953790
650			_aMEDICINA CLÍNICA HOSPITALARIA _953754
650			_aPOLÍTICA SANITARIA _92322
650			_aDERECHO SANITARIO _948689
650			_aVACUNAS _98158
700			_aZite, Nikki B. _954570
700			_aBrown, Miriam _954571
700			_aOsmundson, Sarah S. _954572
700			_aSharma, Deva _954573
773	0		_022717 _922684 _dMassachusetts NEJM Group _oNEJM016 _tThe New England Journal of Medicine _wESSALUD _x0028-4793
942			_cARTICULOS _e2026-08-31 _zsqb
999			_c22929 _d22929