This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • HIV/AIDS  • Law and Medicine  • Public Health, Other  • Diagnosis  • Alert me on articles by topic

Sarah Neff, MPH; Ronald H. Goldschmidt, MD

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In their informative article, Halpern et al¹ point out that intensivists' decisions to pursue nonconsented testing are often associated with erroneous understandings and perceptions of state laws. The authors propose uniform standards for nonconsented testing. We agree that such a policy would be optimal. Although appealing in its simplicity, this solution may not be immediately—if at all—feasible or accepted, since each state writes its own laws. The lack of national conformity regarding nonconsented testing can be expected to continue. Because of the complexity and variability of these laws, as well as recent changes in many states' laws, intensivists and other clinicians will need make decisions that are—or are perceived to be—at odds with state laws. The misunderstanding of state laws mentioned by Halpern et al¹ is central to this problem. The National HIV/AIDS Clinicians' Consultation Center (NCCC) of the University of California, San . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION

RELATED ARTICLE

Nonconsented Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing Among Critically Ill Patients: Intensivists' Practices and the Influence of State Laws
Scott D. Halpern, Thomas S. Metkus, Barry D. Fuchs, Nicholas S. Ward, Mark D. Siegel, John M. Luce, and J. Randall Curtis
Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(21):2323-2328.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT