Instructions:
1. Reply to each post with a paragraph regarding their post.
Post#1 – Simonette
AIDS is spread through contact with infected blood or body fluids, such as semen, vaginal secretions, and breast milk. In the healthcare setting, there are a few ways that AIDS can be transmitted. One is via blood transfusion, which was not appropriately screened. The other one is from an infected healthcare worker who performs an invasive procedure on the patient and accidentally has an exchange of fluid or blood. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that healthcare workers who perform “exposure-prone� procedures undergo tests voluntarily to determine whether they are infected and to inform the patients (Pozgar, 2016).
The ethical dilemma and legal issues come into play because the healthcare workers and the patients assert that their Fourth Amendment right to privacy is violated by mandatory HIV testing and disclosure. On the other hand, healthcare institutions should give the public the right to be protected from deadly diseases. In our discussion this week, the surgeon agreed to HIV testing, which turned out to be positive. It was his choice to withdraw from performing any more surgical procedures. I do not see any ethical or legal dilemma because the surgeon agreed to the HIV testing and voluntarily quit performing any other surgeries. I do not think the surgeon needs to disclose being HIV positive to all his/her patients and colleagues. This information should be confidential to the surgeon’s employer only. Through this proactive act of the surgeon, he/she upholds the welfare of the people as vital to his practice. According to American Disabilities Act, an employee does not have to tell an employer about HIV status unless the surgeon asks for special accommodations, such as withdrawing from surgery. It also states that the employer has the legal right to ask about the employee’s HIV status if the ability to do the work could put others at risk (Bernstein, 2022). As such, in the case of surgeons, there is always a possibility or risk of accidental cuts, and an exchange of blood might occur. The same case cited in Pozgar’s book happened in Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Court stated that there is a need for at least a partial disclosure of the physician’s HIV Status. It did not require the disclosure of the physician’s name, which protected the physician’s right to privacy. However, failure to notify the patients at risk of the physician’s HIV status could spread the disease in other ways (Pozgar, 2016).
Post #2- Victor
Privacy guidelines standards for clients have been established since 1996 under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Familiar to those in the healthcare industry HIPPA provides specific rules on the client’s privacy and confidentiality regarding their medical records and history (Your rights under, 2022). The scenario mentioned above, however, puts the shoe on the other foot. The clinician’s recent positive HIV lab results questioned his or her right to privacy in revealing the test result to the client. According to Pozgar ethical dilemmas occur with either choice gives up something that may be beneficial, resulting in a poor outcome or situation (Pozgar, 2014). Within my moral value system, the provider is obligated to notify the client of the result as it is a privilege to provide care and do no harm to the client or Nonmaleficence. The risk to the client in not informing them of the physician’s HIV result puts the client and their family members at risk as anyone else who comes into contact with the client’s body fluids, including the client’s health care team, could potentially acquire the disease and pass it along. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requires all states to report positive HIV results, and some states have laws to criminalize exposure to HIV. The state of California, where I live, has laws against knowingly spreading Communicable or Infectious Diseases, which HIV falls into (Centers for Disease Control, 2022). Another legal implication is an infection acquired within the hospital walls if the client is found positive later, potentially having the hospital liable for the surgical mishap. Unfortunately, no law or ethical guide addresses the caregiver in this specific scenario. The best-case scenario, following ethical guidelines protecting both the client and caregiver, would be notifying the client of exposure withholding who may have exposed them, following up with the CDC tracer, and providing follow-up care for the client expecting possible litigation.
*** Original instructions below of this post for backstory***
Discuss the potential controversy when considering a patient’s right to know whether a caregiver has AIDS, and the caregiver’s right to privacy and confidentiality. Consider the following: A physician cut his hand with a scalpel while he was assisting another physician. Because of the uncertainty that blood had been transferred from the physician’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.
Requirements: 1 paragraph