Why should this be a cause for worry? In the past years concern has been raised about tainted blood being sold to commercial blood banks. Health officials were worried that people who sold blood were not properly screened for diseases. To cite an example, drug abusers – who are among the regular vendors of their blood – are prone to ailments such as hepatitis.
In 1994, as a global alert was raised for AIDS, Republic Act 7719 or the National Blood Service Act was passed, seeking to provide an adequate supply of safe blood for the nation, mainly through voluntary blood donation in government and private hospitals. RA 7719 also aimed to shut down commercial blood banks. Operators of such banks, who maintain that they are scrupulous in screening people selling blood, brought their case to the Supreme Court and obtained a TRO. There the controversy languishes.
Meanwhile, the Department of Health cannot regulate the blood banks and cannot guarantee the safety of blood from these establishments. Blood bank operators say they fill a need, pointing out that the government has failed to set up enough facilities nationwide for the voluntary blood donation program.
A blood transfusion can save a life. But tainted blood can aggravate an ailment, cause permanent health impairment or even kill. If commercial blood banks are allowed to continue operations, they should be regulated by the Department of Health. This the DOH can’t do unless the Supreme Court lifts that five-year-old TRO and issue a final ruling on this case. The go-vernment must get its act together to guarantee the safety of the nation’s blood supply.