The Precautionary Principle and the Social Institution of Blood Donation

Communicating the move to individualized donor selection policy: Framing messages focused on recipients and safety

BACKGROUND

Men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) have been deferred from donating blood. However, recent evidence supports the adoption of donor screening based on individuals' sexual behavior over population-based criteria. We explore how best to frame communications about adopting this change to minimize any potential negative consequences (e.g., reduced donor numbers). We examine the effectiveness of risk (emphasizing safety vs. emphasizing low risk), and focus (donor vs. recipient) frames on intentions to donate blood (approach) or feeling deterred from donating (avoid), and mechanisms linked to under-reporting sexual behavior.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a 2 (risk frame: risk vs. safety) by 3 (focus: donor vs. recipient vs. both) between-subjects online experiment (n = 2677). The main outcomes were intentions to donate and feelings of being put-off/deterred from donating (both for self and others). We also assessed the extent that forgetting, embarrassment/shame, and question irrelevance were perceived to be associated with under-reporting sexual behavior.

RESULTS

Frames that focused on safety or a recipient resulted in people reporting being less deterred from donating. Regardless of frame, people from ethnic minorities were more likely to feel deterred. Embarrassment/shame followed by forgetting and perceived irrelevance were the main reasons for under-reporting sexual behaviors, especially in ethnic minorities, and smartphones were perceived as an acceptable memory aid for sexual behavior.

DISCUSSION

Blood services moving to an individualized policy should frame donor selection in terms of safety and/or a recipient focus, explore sensitivities in ethnic minority communities, consider ways to normalize reporting sexual behavior, and use smartphones as a memory aid.

How Should the Precautionary Principle Apply to Pregnant Women in Clinical Research?

The precautionary principle is often invoked in relation to pregnant women and may be one of the underlying reasons for their continuous underrepresentation in clinical research. The principle is appealing, because potential fetal harm as a result of research participation is considered to be serious and irreversible. In our paper, we explore through conceptual analysis whether and if so how the precautionary principle should apply to pregnant women. We argue that the principle is a decision-making strategy underlying risk-benefit decisions in clinical research, which can be applied to pregnant women. However, the current application is a strong one, leading to the promotion of absolute exclusion or, less often, absolute inclusion of pregnant women. In order to change this paralyzing situation, a shift toward weak precautionary thinking is necessary. Instead of automatic extreme precaution, a balance will be found between harms and potential benefits of including pregnant women in clinical research.