HIV status: the prima facie right not to know the result

When a patient regains consciousness from Cryptococcus meningitis, the clinician may offer an HIV test (in case it has not already been done) (scenario 1) or offer to tell the patient his HIV status (in case the test has already been performed with a positive result while the patient was unconscious...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of medical ethics 2016-02, Vol.42 (2), p.100-103
Main Author: Chan, Tak Kwong
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis
Bioethics
Commentary
Company systems management
Court decisions
Disclosure of information
Discourse ethics
Disease transmission
Ethical aspects
Ethics
Facies
HIV
HIV Infections
HIV testing
HIV tests
Humans
Information management
Medical ethics
Medical tests
Moral judgment
Patient Rights
Patients rights
Personal Autonomy
Physicians
Privacy
Privacy rights
Public health
Right of privacy
Right to privacy
Third party
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:When a patient regains consciousness from Cryptococcus meningitis, the clinician may offer an HIV test (in case it has not already been done) (scenario 1) or offer to tell the patient his HIV status (in case the test has already been performed with a positive result while the patient was unconscious) (scenario 2). Youngs and Simmonds proposed that the patient has the prima facie right to refuse an HIV test in scenario 1 but not the prima facie right not to be told the HIV status in scenario 2. I submit that the claims to the right of refusal in both scenarios are similarly strong as they should both be grounded in privacy, self determination or dignity. But a conscientious agent should bear in mind that members of the public also have the right not to be harmed. When the circumstance allows, a proper balance of the potential benefits and harm for all the competing parties should guide the clinical decision as to whose right should finally prevail. Where a full ethical analysis is not possible, the presumption should favour respecting the patient's right of refusal in both scenarios.
ISSN:0306-6800
1473-4257
DOI:10.1136/medethics-2015-103213