active votes
vote archive
discussions



VOTE.COM(tm)
Polls Have Closed
 
YES
Blood screeners like the Red Cross should be held accountable if they cause a donor emotional distress
NO
The Red Cross did exactly what it is required to do in order to protect the blood supply
 
the issue view results discussions
 
An Ohio Appeals Court has upheld the dismissal of Donald Fisher's suit against the Red Cross


In September 1995, Donald Fisher donated blood to the Red Cross.  One month later he received a letter from the Red Cross advising him that his blood had tested positive for syphilis, a sexually transmitted disease.  Mr. Fisher and his wife immediately underwent separate testing at two additional local hospitals.  The tests for both of them came back negative for syphilis.  Fisher sued the Red Cross for infliction of emotional distress. 

Recently, the Ohio Court of Appeals ruled that Fisher cannot recover from the Red Cross.  The court ruled that even if the diagnosis of syphilis was incorrect, Fisher could not recover because his distress was caused by fear of a "nonexistent physical peril."


 
 
more info
 
the facts
The Red Cross has successfully defended itself against a claim of misdiagnosis

the arguments
The good news, and the bad news: you don't have VD but you can't recover for the mistake

Serious and even deadly diseases can be spread through tainted blood -- the Red Cross must take its responsibility very seriously


 
back to the issue



©1999 VOTE.COM. All rights reserved. Patent Pending. Book sales in association with Amazon.com. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our Privacy Policy and view our Security Statement.