Case: Disclosure of Physician’s HIV Status

A resident, Doe, in obstetrics and gynecology at a Medical Center in 1991 cut his hand with a scalpel while he was assisting another physician. Due to the fact that he was not sure if blood was transferred from his cut to the patient he got tested for HIV and was diagnosed HIV positive. After finding out that he stopped participating in surgical procedures. The hospital he was an employee at, The Medical Center, identified 279 patients and Harrisburg identified 168 patients who fell into patients that were operated on with Doe. Although Doe did not want patients of his in the past to know they could have possibly be exposed to the virus through an operation that he was part of the patients were still notified but were not told what the physician’s name was, only the fact that a resident physician who participated in their care tested positive for HIV.

I personally think there was definitely a need for disclosure of this information to the patients who could have possibly contracted this serious disease from this physician during an operation since their lives may be changed for ever. For those who were possibly infected they could have passed on to others individual’s like their husbands, wives, fiancés, boyfriend, girlfriend, or random people they may have sex with who are not infected through sexual contact through unprotected sex or body fluids. Also, if any of the patients’s become IV drug users they could possibly pass the virus in that manner too. Additionally, if any of his past patients became pregnant after possibly being exposed by him through a cut of his during an operation, they could pass it on to their unborn child. If the mother is not checked for STD’s such as HIV her child will most likely be born with HIV since she did not know. If she knew she could have taken some precautions such as medicine to prevent her child from being born with the virus.

I think the court failed to inform the patients. If it were me in their shoes I would want to know it was physician, Doe, who could have possibly exposed me to the virus so I would not have to try to figure it out if I have had numerous operations especially in that hospital. I could possibly still be a patient of his and probably would not wan t to be if I knew. In this case, I think malfeasance was put into act since Dr. Doe and the court wanted the patients to be informed of the matter since they could have been exposed under the condition that the physician’s name was not mentioned protecting his confidentiality as well as his reputation as a physician.

However, beneficence could have taken place in this case amongst the court and physician since revealing the physician’s name would have helped patients find out who possibly infected them or infected them with a life-threatening virus if they were tested and diagnosed as HIV positive since their life will be changed with people viewing them differently (if they know), possibly expensive medications, frequent doctor visits, and expensive blood work. This could have been avoided if patients knew so they could have made their mind up to go through with the operation or not, knowing the possible risks which is a person’s autonomy.