AIDS related actions against people administering blood, defences to
6 AIDS related actions against people administering blood, defences to
Subject to this section, in an AIDS related action against —
a hospital (in this section called the administering hospital) or other person at whose premises blood supplied by the Society or a hospital, or a blood product derived from blood so supplied, was administered to a patient; or
a medical practitioner or a person acting on behalf of a medical practitioner who administered to a patient, or authorised the administration to a patient of, blood supplied by the Society or a hospital, or a blood product derived from blood so supplied,
it is a defence that the Society or the hospital which supplied that blood, as the case requires —
obtained from the donor of that blood within the 12 hours immediately preceding the donation of that blood a declaration made under the Transmissible Diseases Regulations; and
caused, before that blood was supplied to be administered to a person, or to be used in the preparation of a blood product to be so administered, a sample of that blood to be tested, using such equipment and in accordance with such a method as were then required by good medical practice, for the presence of AIDS, and that the result of that test was negative; and
was not guilty of any negligence or wilful misconduct in respect of the taking or testing of that blood or of the storage, preparation, processing, handling, supplying, labelling or other documenting, or administering of that blood or of the relevant blood product derived from that blood, as the case requires.
Subsection (1) does not apply to or in relation to an AIDS related action against —
the administering hospital or other person referred to in paragraph (a), or a medical practitioner or person referred to in paragraph (b), of that subsection if the administering hospital or that other person or that medical practitioner or person was guilty of negligence or wilful misconduct in the storage, handling, labelling or other documenting, or administering of the relevant blood or blood product; or
the administering hospital or other person referred to in subsection (1)(a) if, at any time up to and including the time at which the relevant blood or blood product was administered, the administering hospital or that other person —
had reasonable grounds for believing that that blood or blood product might contain AIDS; and
had not taken all reasonable steps to ensure that that blood or blood product was not administered to a person;
or
a medical practitioner or person referred to in subsection (1)(b) if, at the time when the relevant blood or blood product was administered, that medical practitioner or person has reasonable grounds for believing that that blood or blood product might contain AIDS.
Notwithstanding anything in this section, if in the opinion of not less than 2 medical practitioners —
the condition of a person was such that he was likely to die unless blood or blood products was or were administered to him; and
it was not reasonable practicable in the circumstances to obtain all or any of the blood or blood products required for administration to the person referred to in paragraph (a) from blood or blood products in respect of which the testing referred to in subsection (1)(d) had been carried out with a negative result,
the administration to the person referred to in paragraph (a) of any blood or blood products in respect of which the testing referred to in subsection (1)(d) had not been carried out does not by itself defeat a defence provided by subsection (1).
The statute text is free to read above. View Pro plans to unlock the case-law research tools for each provision.