This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (13)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Public Policy, Discrimination, and Patient Safety

Larry Gostin, JD

Arch Intern Med. 1991;151(4):663-665.

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

I propose a compromise position whereby human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected professionals ought to refrain from the practice of seriously invasive procedures, but they should not be subject to mandatory screening. At the core of my argument is a common-sense, patient-oriented approach. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (Atlanta, Ga) has long advocated, quite correctly, that restrictions on the rights of persons infected with HIV are not justified in employment, education, and housing because the mode of transmission of HIV is sexual or blood-borne and not casual. The CDC, then, could not reasonably sustain a public position favoring the continuance of seriously invasive procedures by infected professionals—health care professionals whose hands are immersed in a body cavity, using a sharp implement with demonstrable epidemiologic evidence of a high rate of torn gloves and cut hands. I suggest five separate questions that need to be asked for a rational resolution of this . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
American Society of Law and Medicine 765 Commonwealth Boston, MA 02215

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?