Question

Legal And Ethical Issues For Health Professionals (4th Edition)

Read the case: Disclosure of Physician's HIV Status on pg. 112

-Do you agree that there was a need for a partial disclosure of the physician's HIV status?

-If "welfare of the people is the supreme law," did the court fall short of its responsibility by not allowing disclosure of the physician's name? Discuss your answer.

Answer 1

An individuals HIV positive status deserves protection against indiscriminate disclosure due to discrimination and stigma associated with the disease,there can be several instances where the person can be predicament whether to or not to disclose a patients status.But here the scenario is about the physicians hiv status,for which there is no need of even partial disclosure of it.The partial disclosure can be done to his family members but not for the place where he/she works.As the HIV is not contagious there is no need to disclose even in case of physician,he should be well instructed to take his medication on time and treat the patients the similar way as he used to do before.If still he is not in a condition to treat then he may resign but the healthcare organisation has no legal rights to discriminate him.