Individual and Institutional Liability for Transfusion-Acquired Diseases

Abstract

A 1985 JAMA SPECIAL COMMUNICATION 1 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