Chapter 17 HIV Assignment

Name
InstructorCourse
Date
HIV Assignment
Questions in Part 1
Blood center should take the required precautions to ensure that the blood is safe for donation. It should have screened the blood and test it in case of disease-causing microorganisms. Besides, it should have ensured that the blood is stored safely and the storage areas are sterilized to meet the required standards of a blood center.
The concept of foreseeability has been used as an element that must exist or for one to provide reasons for the causation. It describes the ability of an individual for this case the medical practitioner to anticipate the danger to others by its negligent acts (J.K. & Susie 1). Besides, it determines the issue of proximate causation.
Questions in Part 2
Partial disclosure of the physician’s HIV status was wrong based on the human rights Act. However, due to the alleged risk to the patient’s he handles, it would be important to take the step ordered by the court. The court is only focused on identifying other people who could have been at risk as well. By doing so, the court would determine various instances of negligence (J.K. & Susie 1). From my perspective, the disclosure would not have been necessary if no patient or person had reported any complaint.
The supreme courts adopt the policies to protect people’s welfare. However, the disclosure of the physician’s name would have been important to ensure that the colleagues identified the exact instance when the physician on the question involved himself with the surgery.

Therefore, failure to disclose his name would not have made sense in identifying the number of surgeries he had involved himself in.
Disclosing Doe’s full name is essential in identifying the patients with whom the injury would have been imposed. It would help the other physicians to identify the patients who might have been affected by the physician’s accidents.

Work Cited
J.K. & Susie L. Wadley Research Inst. v. Beeson, 835 S. W. 2d 689 (Tex. Ct. App. 1992)