This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

An Update

Beth Rabkin, JD; Michael Scott Rabkin, MD, PhD

JAMA. 1986;256(16):2242-2243.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

A 1985 JAMA SPECIAL COMMUNICATION¹ presented a rather pessimistic view of the risk of liability to hospitals, blood banks, and physicians for transfusion-associated acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Relatively recent alterations in the legal classification of blood and blood products, now statutory law in 45 of the 50 states (exceptions are New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Vermont), have modified the outlook for those at risk of transfusion-associated AIDS lawsuits. Under current law, a blood recipient who suffers a transfusion-related injury or contracts a transfusion-related disease may only prevail in court if actual negligence on the part of the blood bank, hospital, and/or physician is proved. Negligence only exists where the defendants fail to follow generally accepted professional guidelines including those relating to informed consent, indications for transfusion, and emergency and nonemergency situations. In this instance, the screening guidelines of the American Association of Blood Banks or other . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby, and MacRae (Ms Rabkin), and the Department of Pathology, University of Utah Medical Center (Dr Rabkin), Salt Lake City.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby, and MacRae, 136 S Main St, Suite 1000, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (Dr Rabkin).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?