Indiana Court Denies Pharmaceutical's Claim Under Blood Shield Act

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 24 (1):74-75 (1996)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The Indiana Court of Appeals, in JKB, Sr. v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co. ), held that the state's Blood Shield Act does not protect pharmaceutical companies that produce blood-derived products from product liability suits based on injuries attributable to tainted blood supplies. Blood shield statutes help to guarantee adequate blood supplies by limiting the liability of blood banks. This holding limits the defenses available to pharmaceutical companies sued under product liability theory.The defendant, Armour Pharmaceutical, produces and sells clotting factor agents, which are derived through plasmapheresis. Plasmapheresis is a costly and complex donation process through which the plasma and red blood cells of a donor's blood are separated. After separation, the process returns the red blood cells to the donor but retains the plasma.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Paying donors and the ethics of blood supply.P. Rodriguez del Pozo - 1994 - Journal of Medical Ethics 20 (1):31-35.
Connecticut Supreme Court Denies Claim of Emergency Room Negligence.S. J. - 1995 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 23 (3):297-298.
Citizenship, Identity, Blood Donation.Kylie Valentine - 2005 - Body and Society 11 (2):113-128.
Wtf who?James Stacey Taylor - 2015 - HEC Forum 27 (4):287-300.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-01-06

Downloads
2 (#1,787,337)

6 months
2 (#1,240,909)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references