Interesting. The way I read your sentence is that someone may be under pressure to donate blood in order to prevent others from being injured. Such as- give blood now or you'll never see your family again.
I imagine that is not what you mean and that what you are saying is that someone may be under pressure from co-workers, employers, etc. to give blood and that a process exists for the potential donor to still donate blood but also mark on a form that his/her blood should not be used. Thus, the donor looks like a good citizen, no one gets hurt, and everyone is happy.
Also- if someone that donates blood opts out so that their blood is not used for transfusion, is the blood used for anything at all? Or is it discarded?
Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part. Allow me to try again.
People may feel pressure to give blood for a variety of reasons. McGreevey's case would be a prime example. As Governor, he would be expected to participate in things like blood drives and it would be highly noticable if he refused for health reasons.
The confidential opt-out bar codes allows the donor to avoid the problems that may be associated with opting out publicly while still ensuring that nobody will be injured by the fact that he donated tainted blood.
Given that this procedure was available, one would hope McGreevey took advantage of it. No way to know for sure, of course, because the opt-out is anonymous.
If I recall the schpiel correctly, the blood would be tested for diseases and discarded. The donor would be informed of any positive results on these tests.
Still a cop out...Why expose the the blood workers to the risk of accidental needle stick or risk the blood supply in case it is mishandled?
This guy should be disgraced, not lauded as some kind of martyr.