Compulsory blood tests for all hospital patients

Yuri Checkov

www. rte.ie/news/2015/0728/717658-st-jamess-hiv-hepatitis/

I assume I can refuse to all these samples to be taken? Can the hospital simply tell you to sling yer hook and refuse service?

Is there any legal basis or SI that allows these tests?

I have personal reasons for refusing to submit to these tests which shall remain private here.

Yuri Checkov

Yuri Checkov wrote: »

www. rte.ie/news/2015/0728/717658-st-jamess-hiv-hepatitis/

I assume I can refuse to all these samples to be taken? Can the hospital simply tell you to sling yer hook and refuse service?

Is there any legal basis or SI that allows these tests?

I have personal reasons for refusing to submit to these tests which shall remain private here.

They made it absolutely clear that they're doing it on an opt out rather than opt in basis.

If you don't want it you don't have to have it so there's no issue.

Taco Chips

It's perfectly within your rights to refuse a blood test but bear in mind its part of serial data used to get a baseline for your health and used to see if treatment is working. Blood tests are a very fundamental part of inpatient medicine and they're done to assist in making you well. I don't know what your personal reasons are but it would be a good idea to try and put them aside and look at the important picture here.

GerardKeating

Yuri Checkov wrote: »

www. rte.ie/news/2015/0728/717658-st-jamess-hiv-hepatitis/

I assume I can refuse to all these samples to be taken? Can the hospital simply tell you to sling yer hook and refuse service?

Is there any legal basis or SI that allows these tests?

I have personal reasons for refusing to submit to these tests which shall remain private here.

But no-where in the article does it say the test are compulsory?

d9oiu2wk07blr5

Presumably St James's are asking all patients who present at the emergency department if they consent to being screened for Hepatitis and HIV, otherwise they cannot assume that all patients are aware of their right to opt-out. What about patients who don't have the capacity to opt-out?

GerardKeating

Amayah Brave Glasses wrote: »

Presumably St James's are asking all patients who present at the emergency department if they consent to being screened for Hepatitis and HIV, otherwise they cannot assume that all patients are aware of their right to opt-out. What about patients who don't have the capacity to opt-out?

If a Patient does not have the capacity to "opt-out" then I doubt if they have the capacity to consent to treatment ?

d9oiu2wk07blr5

GerardKeating wrote: »

If a Patient does not have the capacity to "opt-out" then I doubt if they have the capacity to consent to treatment ?

In an emergency situation they'd work off the premise of presumed consent for medical treatment. Treatment is given if the patients doctors, relatives or carers belief that it's in their best interests. Presumably they have policies in place to assess a persons mental capacity to opt-out from screening.

michael999999

Why would you not want to know if you had either Hepatitis or HIV?

GerardKeating

michael999999 wrote: »

Why would you not want to know if you had either Hepatitis or HIV?

Or they might "know" but not want an offical record of it.

JohnBee

Amayah Brave Glasses wrote: »

Presumably St James's are asking all patients who present at the emergency department if they consent to being screened for Hepatitis and HIV, otherwise they cannot assume that all patients are aware of their right to opt-out. What about patients who don't have the capacity to opt-out?

Doctors and nurses deal with patients every day of the week who lack capacity, I cannot imagine this will pose a major issue in the overall workflow/screening.

Also puzzled as to why OP is so paranoid about finding out about conditions, which if treated early have less long term consequences?

davo10

Blood tests are always done as part of the "work up" on sick patients, not necessarily on those presenting due to minor trauma. Hospitals want consent for the purposes of carrying out studies and being able to publish the stats without fear of ethical and legal repercussions.

conorh91

That HIV figure is disturbing: 1% of patients had HIV.

I know that doesn't mean 1% of society has HIV, since HIV sufferers are more likely to be in hospital than healthy people, but still. That's over 10 times the diagnosed prevalence of HIV, and suggests HIV is way under-diagnosed, which is why I personally would support procedures like standard testing.

Also, with that kind of prevalence, we really need to limit the risk of cross-infection.

Whatever about any ethical objections you might have to this OP, I can't envisage any legal impediment to the practice.

Greenmachine

GerardKeating wrote: »

Or they might "know" but not want an offical record of it.

Someone help me understand, why someone would want there disease status recorded other than nefarious reasons. Not suggesting we should have people with hepatitis wear bells are anything. Person x could knowing have a blood borne disease and have unprotected sex, and never face prosecution because, "they didn't know, they were infected". Not saying this is the OP's motivation just giving an example of why someone might not want something like this on record. Begs the questions, where they were already tested if they already know their status though.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

It should be compulsory.

davo10

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It should be compulsory.

Epidemiological studies and infection rates essential for education and prevention. Thankfully the stigma associated with HIV and hepatitis has decreased and with proper treatment the infected person can live a long and healthy life. But this has led to complacency and infection rates are now rising dramatically which puts the population and health staff particularly at risk. Blood tests are always done prior to surgery and hospitals are noticing increased positive results, James's has a high presentation rate in a&he because it is the destination of choice for drug addicts seeking/needing treatment. The problem is what to do with this information and how to inform the public without breaching ethical and legal constraints.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

There's nothing unethical about it. If someone is presenting to a hospital and expecting people to work on them and make them feel better then they need to be open with the medical team about what they're dealing with.

davo10

LexieOnRale wrote: »

There's nothing unethical about it.

At present there is. Consent is required, but patients are tested anyway prior to surgery. But there are very definite ethical and legal considerations associated with the use of that data. What needs to be weighed up is whether the needs of the many outweighs the rights of the few. Changing the testing protocol will require a change to legislation governing the practice of medicine and patient consent.