Abstract
In this discussion1 of Legal Aspects of infection control, Infection Control refers to a hospital program that is designed to prevent, identify and control infections acquired in the hospital or brought into the hospital from the community. This program is pervasive and comprehensive. It affects patients, employees, professional staff, treatment programs, and hospital operations, for example the disposal of hazardous waste or sterilization of equipment and devices. Indeed, the comprehensive nature of a hospital infection control program may be likened to public health programs undertaken in the community. The hospital is in effect a mini-community. Concerns about containing and treating venereal disease or AIDS and the management of infectious waste are all concerns reflected at a broader level in the community and in the state through authorizing legislation and a variety of programs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
This discussion represents the views of the author. It is not offered as legal advice.
Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 35 §521 et seq.
Id. at §521.4(a).
Id. at §521.4(b).
Id. at §521.4(d).
Id. at §521.2.
Id. at §521.11.
Id. at §521.11(a.2)
Id.
Id. at §521.8.
Id. at §521.13.
Id.
Id.
Id. at §521.13(b).
Id. at §521.14(a).
Id.
These sections are good examples of the incomplete attention that may be given to another medico-legal question when the emphasis is on a different topic. Thus, with the focus on prevention of venereal disease, consent for blood tests and consent of minors is briefly addressed. Here, the statute references testing in the absence of “dissent”; other state legislation defines consent more completely. Other provisions which affect minors use a different age at which they can act independent of their parents, or describe other health care needs e. g. pregnancy, where a minor’s consent is sufficient to authorize treatment. It would be an interesting, a possibly even useful exercise to collect and compare these provisions for purpose, consistency, and clarity.
Id. at §521.15.
West’s Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code §429.36.
228 Cal. Rptr. 700, 183 Cal. App. 3d 1272 (1986).
West’s Fla. Stat. Ann. §232.032.
Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations, Infection Control, Accreditation Manual for Hospital, pp. 75-76, 1988.
See, for example, The Hospital Association of Pennsylvania, AIDS Guidelines for Hospitals, Feb., 1988, AIDS Task Group of the American Academy of Hospital Attorneys, AIDS and the Law; Responding to the Special Concerns of Hospitals, Spring, 1988.
211 N.E. 2d 253, 33 I11. 2d 326 (1965).
This requirement should not be confused with the well-known “Good Samaritan” statute. This statute exists in every state in similar format. It may cover physicians, nurses, emergency medical technicians, and others. It does not compel emergency treatment. Rather, it immunizes the “treater” from liability for providing gratuitous, emergency treatment in good faith without wilful or gross negligence. See, for example, Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 42 §8331.
42 USCA §§291, 291c(e) (Hill Burton Act).
42 UCSA §1395dd.
28 Pa. Code §105.11.
29 USCA §794 (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973).
Supra, note 22.
37 Morbidity & Mortality Weekly “Rep. No. 24, (June, 24, 1988).
OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.44A.
Ethical Issues Involved in the Growing AIDS Crisis, Report of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, 1987.
Id.
42 USCA §300a-7.
A recent law review article cites forty-four states. Durham, Wood, & Candie, Accommodation of Conscientious Objection to Abortion: A case study of the Nursing Profession, B.Y.U.L. Rev. 253, 308 (1982).
I11. Ann. Stat. Ch. 111 1/2 §5302.
Iowa Code Ann. §146.1; Ky. Rev. Stat. U311.800(5)(b)-(c); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 43 §955.2(b)(2).
199 N.J. Super. 18, 488 A.2d 229 (1985).
Id. at 26, 488 A.2d at 233 (citing American Nurse’s Association, Code for Nurses with Interpretive Statements, 1.4 at 5 (1981)).
This was adopted by the Joint Commission, at the April, 1987 meeting of its Board of Governors.
Query whether this was the real problem in the Warthen case.
29 USCA §651 et seq.
No. 93A02-8707-EX-278 (Ind. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Apr. 4, 1988).
Supra, note 43.
Munic. Code Ch. III, Art. 5.8, §45.82(A)(1) (1985).
Phila. Exec. Order No. 4-86 (April 15, 1986).
Chalk v. U.S. District Court, 832 F.2d. 1158 (9th Cir., 1987); Doe v. Senacola & Sons Excavating, No. 86-320828N2, Mich. Cir. Ct., Oakland (Apr. 8, 1987), Doe V. Orange Co. Department of Educy F. Supp. (USDC, CD. Cal. No. CV87-516903). California Fair Employment and Housing Comm. v. Raytheon Co., No. FEP 83-84 (Feb. 5, 1987).
29 USCA §793.
Pennsylvania Medical Society Policy on AIDS, Oct. 25, 1987.
Note that, workers’ compensation depends on the individual’s employment status. Thus it would not be available to a physician with only a medical staff appointment to the hospital, since that does not create an employer-employee relationship. The physician’s remedy would be an action against the hospital, most likely based on negligence. As in most negligence actions, the physician’s conduct in contributing to or avoiding the harm may be an issue.
No. 1-87-1447 WC (I11. App. Ct., 1st Dist. May 15, 1988).
185 Ga. App. 771, 365 S.E.2d 549 (1988).
Supra,note 22 at xi.
28 Pa. Code §103.22.
Id. at §103.22(b).
Id. at §103.22(b)(5).
Supra, note 22 at xii.
Supra, note 22.
Supra, note 45.
Supra, note 45 at §103.22(b)(11).
The hospital is required to provide for the physical isolation of patients. See, for example, 28 Pa. Code §146.2 and note 6, supra.
Del.C. tit. 14 §131.
M.G.L.A. Ch. 76 §15.
I11. Rev. Stat. Ch. 111 1/2 p. 7506 §6.
291 Ala. 701 (1973).
No. 4541/88 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 27, 1988).
Supra, note 31.
American Hospital Association, AIDS/HIV Infection Policy: Ensuring a Safe Hospital Environment, Report and Recommendations of the Special Committee on AIDS/HIV Infection Policy (Nov. 1987).
Supra, note 24.
There is no incentive to sue the infection control practitioner if all are part of the same insurance program.
This may be due in part to lack of documentation in the patient’s chart that an infection control practitioner was involved in the patient’s treatment, or that treatment was (or should have been) subject to an infection control protocol.
Colo. Ct. App. 472 p.20 769 (1970).
248 F. Supp. 732 (USDC,D So. Carolina, Charleston Div. 1966).
Supra, note 22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1990 Plenum Press, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weiss, E.C. (1990). Legal Aspects of Infection Control. In: Cundy, K.R., Kleger, B., Hinks, E.T., Miller, L.A. (eds) Infection Control. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5724-7_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5724-7_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-5726-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-5724-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive