Blood provisions defended

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32775, 27 November 1971, Page 3

Blood provisions defended

(N.Z. Press Association)

WELLINGTON, Nov. 26. There was no intention that the taking of blood samples from accident victims should interfere with the treatment of a patient, nor that the taking of blood should have priority over treatment, the Minister of Transport (Mr Gordon) said today.

He was replying in a statement to criticism from hospital boards and doctors of the Transport Amendment Act, which provides for blood samples to be taken from patients admitted to hospital as the result of road accidents.

Mr Gordon said the legis-

1 lation was based on the interim report of the Select, Committee on Road Safety, which heard evidence from a number of bodies, including the Medical Association of New Zealand and the Hospital Superintendents’ Association.

“In fact, the section of the act relating to the taking of

blood in hospitals provides that the blood will not be taken if this is prejudicial to treatment,” he said. “And it was amended to provide that the specimen is taken 'if practicable.’ “There is no suggestion of compulsion to the extent that blood must be taken by force, as one hospital super-intendent-in-chief suggested. “Where a patient is capable of giving consent, and refuses to do so, special provision is made in relation to that patient, which does not impose any duty on the hospital or doctor concerned.” He said the procedure for taking blood would be very simple. Details were now being worked but. and would be discussed with the Hospital Boards’ Association and the Medical Association of New Zealand before being promulgated. “I’m sure that when the

hospital boards and the doctors see the details of the scheme they will realise their fears are groundless,” he said.