Question

Disclosure of Physician HIV status Citation Application of Milton S. Hershey Med. Ctr 639 A 2d 159 (Pa. 1993) Facts The 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 assisting another physician. Because of the uncertainty that blood had been transferred from Doe`s hand would 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 and Harrisburg identifed 168 who fell into this catigory. Because the hospital did not identify those surgeries in which physician may have accidentally cut themselves the hospital filed petition in the court of commons Pleas alleging that there was under the confidentiality of HIV related information ACT 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 disclosed the information and that he was entitled to confidentiality under the act..  

The court issued an order for selective release of information by 1 providing the name of Doe to the physician and resident with whom he had participated in a surgical procedure or obstetrical care. 2 Providing a letter to the patients at risk describing Doe as a resident in OB/GYN . 3 setting forth the relevant period of such services. The physician were prohibited under the HIV act from disclosing Doe`s name. The superior court affirmed the decision of the trial court and doe appealed.

Issue

was there a need to release selective information regarding Doe`s HIV positive staus as determined by the court?

Holding

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a compelling need existed for atlease a partial disclosure of the physician`s HIV status

Reason  

There was no question that Doe`s HIV positive status fell within the HIV act definition of confidential information. There were however exception within the HIV act that allowed for disclosure of information. In this case there was a compelling reason to allow disclosure of the information. All the medical expert 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 there there was atlease some conceivable risk of exposure and that giving a limited form of notice would not be unreasonable. Failure to notify the patients at risk could result in the spread of the disease to other noninfected individual through sexual contact and through the exposure to others bodily fluid. Doe`s name was not revealed to the patient only the fact that a resident physician who participated in their care had tested positive. No principal is more deeply embedded in the law than that expressed in the maxim Salus populi suprema lex. and more compelling and consistent application of that principle  than the one presented would be quiet difficult to conceive

1. Do you agree that there was a need for a partial disclosure of the physician HIV status?

2. If ' "The 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

3.Was it necessary to disclose Doe`s full name to those physicians with whom he worked? Why?

Answer 1

1.       As per the State laws, each patient is ensured with the classification identified with HIV (Human invulnerable lack Virus) data. The divulgence of any such data without the approval is liable to common or criminal punishments. The data must be imparted to other human services experts and on need to know premise. According to the case Peron D is experiencing HIV, who is a doctor at restorative focus to embrace medical procedure. Because of the idea of calling there are patients and co-occupants who are presented to the danger of transmission of the infection.

Under the law, it is referenced that the data should be shared among other social insurance experts and to the related party, so as to shield and protect them from the transmission. It is the obligation of law to advise and uncover the data amid the convincing circumstances.

2. herefore, the court's decision of midway disclosure about the specialists HIV status was correct. It is the commitment of law to give the benefit to information when there is reasonable dimension of danger included, and thusly keeping the arrangement of the patient perfect. Each law that has been executed by the legislature or state is for the advantage and welfare of the general population. Both the gatherings for example the patient and the related people must be defended against any danger of transmission of illness and risk to segregation. So as to secure the intrigue and the hazard that the patients and co-doctors had as for HIV disease, it was essential to illuminate them about the presentation. Correspondingly according to the classification law, it was likewise imperative to ensure the suppositions of the patient experiencing the infection against any looked for of separation. Accordingly, it was a right choice to guarantee the wellbeing of individuals and the patient by incomplete divulgence that filled both the need. It was the obligation of the court to ensure that the patient's privacy is kept up and the general population around them are additionally mindful of the circumstance.