Legal liability for transfusion injury in the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome era

The emergence of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome has wrought changes that have affected not only medicine and science, but many aspects of our social and political structures. In 1983 when it clearly became evident that acquired immunodeficiency syndrome could be transmitted by transfusions of blood components and products, blood banks became the focus of intense scrutiny by the public as well as by the mass media. Suddenly it was known that people could contract acquired immunodeficiency syndrome even though they had not engaged in activities known to place them at increased risk for acquiring infection with the human immunodeficiency virus type 1. In many ways the general fear evoked was, and remains, disproportionate to the risks posed by transfusions. This fear coupled with a general distrust of blood banks may also be reflected in the legal response to people infected with human immunodeficiency syndrome type 1 through transfusions. Further, whether the fault system of our tort law is an appropriate way to determine compensation for people injured by transfusion has been brought into question. For those people injured prior to our recognition of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the failings of the current system are most obvious.