What US States have requirements similar to the California Paul Gann Blood Safety Act?
A Staffing Coordinator at a Medical Center in Mohave, Arizona reports that she is aware of the Section 1645 of the California Health and Safety Code which states: "1645. Blood transfusions; informed consent procedures; autologous blood and directed and nondirected homologous blood. (a) Whenever there is a reasonable possibility, as determined by a physician and surgeon, that a blood transfusion may be necessary as a result of a medical or surgical procedure, the physician and surgeon, by means of a standard written summary as most recently developed or revised by the State Department of Health Services pursuant to subdivision (e), shall inform the patient of the positive and negative aspects of receiving autologous blood and directed and nondirected homologous blood from volunteers. For purposes of this section, the term 'autologous blood' includes, but is not limited to, predonation, intraoperative autologous transfusion, plasmapheresis, and hemodilution." She would like to know what other states in the US have similar requirements/laws.
The following comments have been received.
ADDENDA Jan. 21, 2006
- A physician who directs a Blood Bank and Transfusion Medicine Service at a University Hospital in New Jersey reports that her state has a law which is similar to the California Paul Gann Blood Safety Act (also see pdf file).
ADDENDA Jan. 30, 2008
- Editor's Note: Senate
Bill 102 was introduced by Senator Carole Migden in January
2007. The bill was approved by the Governor in July 2007
and has
been chaptered. The previous version of the Paul Gann Blood
Safety Act required that a physician inform the patient
of the positive and negative aspects of receiving autologous blood and
directed and nondirected homologous blood from volunteers, whenever
there was a reasonable possibility that a blood transfusion may be necessary
as a result of a medical procedure, and by means of a standardized written
summary that is published by the Medical Board of California. The new
version of the law expands the list of individuals who may provide
the written summary to include doctors of podiatric medicine. Furthermore,
the new law permits that the information be given directly
by the physician or doctor of podiatric medicine, or indirectly
via a nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, or
physician assistant,
who is authorized to order a blood transfusion. Click HERE for
full text of the chaptered bill.
Submit comments to the e-Network Forum at enetworkforum@cbbsweb.org
Ira A. Shulman, MD
CBBS e-Network Forum Editor & Moderator
W. Tait Stevens, MD
CBBS e-Network Forum Assistant Editor & Moderator
The e-Network Forum is supported in part by the California Blood Bank Society (CBBS) and the American Red Cross Blood Services (ARCBS) and endorses collegial discussion among blood banking and transfusion medicine professionals. However, neither the CBBS nor the ARCBS in any way endorse the specific views and opinions expressed in the forum. The forum is not intended as a substitute for medical or legal advice and the content should not be relied upon for any medical or legal purposes. Readers should make their own determinations as to: (i) what constitutes appropriate medical, technical, and administrative practices, and (ii) how best to comply with laws and regulations relevant to their questions. For the latter, they should consider consulting, as to any medical matters, a qualified physician, and, as to any legal matters, an attorney familiar with related state and federal laws. The user of the forum, by accessing same, assumes all risks arising out of such use and releases CBBS and their respective members, directors, officers and agents from and against any loss, damage, claim or liability arising out of such use of the Forum.
