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
 
The Red Cross has successfully defended itself against a claim of misdiagnosis


The Court of Appeals of Ohio has ruled that a blood donor, Donald Fisher, cannot recover from the Red Cross for an alleged misdiagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease.  Fisher donated blood to the Red Cross that tested positive for syphilis.  When Fisher later had his blood tested at two different hospitals, the tests were negative.  The Red Cross however claimed that it had relied on more sophisticated blood screening tests than the ones that Fisher had done.  The Red Cross denied the diagnosis was in error.

Recently, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Fisher's claims.  The Court ruled that whether or not the diagnosis was wrong, Fisher could not recover because the Red Cross was simply following established regulations and procedures. 

 


 
 
more info
 
the facts
An Ohio Appeals Court has upheld the dismissal of Donald Fisher's suit against the Red Cross

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

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


 
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.