trustysteed said:they test blood for bad stuff, so wouldn't they prefer to have it in the first place, test it, then decide what to do with it? obviously not, so i haven't bothered since. didn't make sense to me.
Arch said:Even if they could test for everything, maybe the time and manpower involved in taking your blood, then testing it for everything, then disposing of if it was 'bad', would outweigh the advantage of taking it? It just a balance of risk versus resources, I would have thought.