Sometimes, people who are otherwise eligible to donate blood are unduly deferred from donating. "Unduly" indicates a gap where a deferral policy misstates what exposes potential donors to risk and so defers more donors than is justified. A number of bioethicists and public health officials have criticized specific deferral policies in order to reformulate or eliminate them. Policy change is undoubtedly the right goal because the policy is what prevents otherwise eligible donors from donating needed blood. But this policy-level focus passes over a largely undiscussed question: if policy change takes time and there is a need for blood now, then what should unduly deferred donors do in the meanwhile? Blood banks and federal agencies recommend that deferred donors donate their time or money until they become eligible, but blood is a non-fungible good: donated cash or volunteered time cannot replace a transfusion. Further, this request ignores the fact that otherwise eligible donors could safely donate their blood in addition to their time and money. If a donor justifiably believes that her blood does not pose a risk to a recipient, but knows that honestly answering a donor questionnaire would unduly defer her, then is she morally justified in lying on the questionnaires in order to donate blood?

中文翻译：

---

如果需要说谎：献血者不合规的道德规范。

有时，原本有资格献血的人被过度推迟献血。“过分”表示存在差距，即延期政策错误地说明了潜在捐助者面临的风险，因此推迟了比合理范围更多的捐助者。许多生物伦理学家和公共卫生官员批评了具体的延期政策，以重新制定或取消这些政策。政策改变无疑是正确的目标，因为政策阻止了其他符合条件的献血者捐献所需的血液。但这种政策层面的关注忽略了一个基本上未讨论的问题：如果政策改变需要时间并且现在需要血液，那么在此期间过度延迟的捐赠者应该怎么做？血库和联邦机构建议延期献血者捐赠他们的时间或金钱，直到他们符合条件，但血液是一种不可替代的商品：捐赠的现金或自愿的时间不能代替输血。此外，该请求忽略了这样一个事实，即除了时间和金钱之外，符合条件的献血者还可以安全地献血。如果捐赠者有理由相信她的血液不会对接受者构成风险，但知道诚实地回答捐赠者问卷会过度推迟她，那么她为了献血而在问卷上撒谎在道德上是合理的吗？