- Email: [email protected]
Safety of the blood supply. Liability for transfusion-associated AIDS
50
HIV screening. Scientific, ethical and legal issues Howard, J. Department of Community and Environmental Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA 92717, U.S.A. J. Legal Med.; 914 (1988) 601-610 Historically, contagious diseases have been the subject of statutes, regulations, and jucidial decisions imposing limitations on individual freedoms for the sake of the public health. The human immunodeficiency virus epidemic is no different. HIV screening and other public public health strategies aimed at containing HIV spread must be examined from scientific, ethical, and legal perspectives to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between the public’s interest in health and safety and the individual’s interest in privacy and liberty.
Safety of the blood supply. Liability for transfusion-associated AIDS Janowitz, W.R. Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL 33140, U.S.A. J. Legal Med.; 9/4 (1988) 611-622 As is evident from the above discussion, any plaintiff attempting to recover for transfusionassociated AIDS transmission faces formidable obstacles. In part, this is the result of societal decisions concerning the need for affordable blood and blood products in the care of seriously ill patients. When there is evidence of negligence, our legal system has historically compensated innocent victims and this should be true in the case of AIDS transmission. The question of what should be done when antibody negative blood transmits HIV has not yet been decided. As mentioned previously, application of strict liability may be appropriate for this small group of patients. The AIDS epidemic will place increasing strains on our medical and legal systems in the near future. How we address these problems will say much about the nature of our society.
Considerations and potential pitfalls in AIDS lab testing Wecht, C.H. Department of Pathology, Central Medical Center *pa Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, U.S.A. J. Legal Med.; 914 (1988) 623-635 The laboratory testing for HIV antibody presents a unique set of challenges for the laboratory professional. These challenges have evolved from two sources. Primarily, there is the technical challenge of selecting, evaluating, and identifying the optimal testing methods by which the medical community can begin to identify the true nature and scope of the disease process. We are dealing with an imperfect test method. The prevalence rate in the population at large has yet to be fully defined. Rates of false positives and false negatives are given as statistical best estimates based on estimates of prevalence rates. We are facing increasing pressures from individuals and groups j screen large segments of the population. These same individuals and groups have not taken the time to review the very basic scientihc and statistical data which indicate that mass screening of the population is inappropriate. Until such time as the available testing methods are improved, and the rates of false and false negative tests are decreased, the dilemma will persist. There is also the challenge of education. We are deluged with new information on a daily basis and must digest this information so as to provide it to our fellow practitioners in a usable format. The concepts of specificity, sensitivity, and predictive value are not new ones to the laboratory field. They have been in use for many years. Unfortunately, they have been used too little outside of the laboratory. With the onset of the AIDS epidemic, they have been catapulted to a sudden role of prominence. Health care professionals have a responsibility to teach and educate both their fellow professionals and the public to what these test results mean and when and where it is appropriate to test. These are issues that must be addressed.
HIV screening. Scientific, ethical and legal issues Howard, J. Department of Community and Environmental Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA 92717, U.S.A. J. Legal Med.; 914 (1988) 601-610 Historically, contagious diseases have been the subject of statutes, regulations, and jucidial decisions imposing limitations on individual freedoms for the sake of the public health. The human immunodeficiency virus epidemic is no different. HIV screening and other public public health strategies aimed at containing HIV spread must be examined from scientific, ethical, and legal perspectives to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between the public’s interest in health and safety and the individual’s interest in privacy and liberty.
Safety of the blood supply. Liability for transfusion-associated AIDS Janowitz, W.R. Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL 33140, U.S.A. J. Legal Med.; 9/4 (1988) 611-622 As is evident from the above discussion, any plaintiff attempting to recover for transfusionassociated AIDS transmission faces formidable obstacles. In part, this is the result of societal decisions concerning the need for affordable blood and blood products in the care of seriously ill patients. When there is evidence of negligence, our legal system has historically compensated innocent victims and this should be true in the case of AIDS transmission. The question of what should be done when antibody negative blood transmits HIV has not yet been decided. As mentioned previously, application of strict liability may be appropriate for this small group of patients. The AIDS epidemic will place increasing strains on our medical and legal systems in the near future. How we address these problems will say much about the nature of our society.
Considerations and potential pitfalls in AIDS lab testing Wecht, C.H. Department of Pathology, Central Medical Center *pa Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, U.S.A. J. Legal Med.; 914 (1988) 623-635 The laboratory testing for HIV antibody presents a unique set of challenges for the laboratory professional. These challenges have evolved from two sources. Primarily, there is the technical challenge of selecting, evaluating, and identifying the optimal testing methods by which the medical community can begin to identify the true nature and scope of the disease process. We are dealing with an imperfect test method. The prevalence rate in the population at large has yet to be fully defined. Rates of false positives and false negatives are given as statistical best estimates based on estimates of prevalence rates. We are facing increasing pressures from individuals and groups j screen large segments of the population. These same individuals and groups have not taken the time to review the very basic scientihc and statistical data which indicate that mass screening of the population is inappropriate. Until such time as the available testing methods are improved, and the rates of false and false negative tests are decreased, the dilemma will persist. There is also the challenge of education. We are deluged with new information on a daily basis and must digest this information so as to provide it to our fellow practitioners in a usable format. The concepts of specificity, sensitivity, and predictive value are not new ones to the laboratory field. They have been in use for many years. Unfortunately, they have been used too little outside of the laboratory. With the onset of the AIDS epidemic, they have been catapulted to a sudden role of prominence. Health care professionals have a responsibility to teach and educate both their fellow professionals and the public to what these test results mean and when and where it is appropriate to test. These are issues that must be addressed.