Question

Read the following story about the Dr. John Doe’s experience.

A physician, John Doe, was a resident in obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) at the medical center. In 1991, he cut his hand with a scalpel while he was assisting another physician. Because of the uncertainty that blood had been transferred from Doe’s hand wound to the patient through an open surgical incision, he agreed to have a blood test for HIV. His blood tested positive for HIV, and he withdrew himself from participation in further surgical procedures. The medical center and Harrisburg Hospital, where Doe also participated in surgery, identified those patients who could be at risk. The medical center identified 279 patients, and Harrisburg identified 168 patients who fell into this category. Because hospital records did not identify those surgeries in which physicians may have accidentally cut themselves, the hospitals filed a petition to waive confidentiality citing a “compelling need” to disclose information regarding Doe’s condition to those patients who conceivably could have been exposed to HIV. Doe argued that there was no compelling need to disclose the information and that he was entitled to confidentiality under the act.

1] Do you agree that there was a need for disclosure of the physician’s HIV status?

2] How would you weigh his right to privacy against the patients’ right to know?

Answer 1

(1). Yes, I agree that there was a need for disclosure of physicians hiv status

(2).There was no question that Doe's HIV-positive status fell within the HIV act's definition of confidential information. There were however, exceptions within the HIV act that allowed for disclosure of the information. In this case there was a compelling reason to allow for disclosure of the information. All the medical experts who testified agreed that there was some risk of exposure and that some form of notice should be given to those patients at risk. Even the expert witness presented by Doe agreed that there was at least some conceivable risk of exposure and that giving a limited form of notice would not be unreasonable. Failure to notify patients at risk could result in the spread of the disease to other noninfected individuals through sexual contact and through exposure to body fluids. Doe's name was not revealed to the patients. Only the fact that a resident physician who participated in their care had tested HIV positive. "No principle is more deeply embedded in the law than that expressed in the maxim salus populi suprema lex,..... (the welfare of the people is the supreme law), and a more compelling and consistent application of that principle than the one presented would be quite difficult to conceive". (Right to know and confidentiality )