Let's look at human immunodeficiency virus look-back before leaping into hepatitis C virus look-back.

THESE ARE INTERESTING but disturbing times in trans­ fusion medicine. For. better or worse, our decisions and policies are influenced aimosf as much by lawyers, leg­ islators, ethicists, the media, and other "representa­ tives" of the public interest as they are by physicians ' and scientists who have devoted their life's work to the field. The issue presently at hand is the advisability of v initiating a look-back program aimed at the identifica-' ; tion, notification, testing, counseling^ and treatment of : persons who may have been infected with hepatitis C ! virus (HCV) through transfusions. And assuming that f such an effort is appropriate, what would be the most f efficient way of identifying the 1 argest number of IICVji"; infected transfusion recipients as quickly as possible? j Fortunately, we have accumulated a substantial body | ; of experience related to these issues over the past decade. Before considering HCV look-back, we should reI view the impetus for and efficacy of previous blood I transfusion recipient notification efforts, to compare them :: with the situation now posed by HCV. We can then discuss and shape our policies and protocols vis-a-vis'HCV look-back (and look-back for other agents for which j * screening may be initiated in the future) on a scientific i' foundation, rather than as an incompletely evaluated rei sponse to a fear of lawsuits or scrutiny from inadequately i informed physicians or the lay public. | I Evolution of Previous Look-back Policies