Infectious Healthcare Workers : Should Patients Be Told?

Overall, both sides of the argument make very valid points when it comes to patient/partner confidentiality, autonomy, and the moral obligation of the individuals who willing know that they are infected with HIV/AIDS to tell their sexual partner. As stated before, I firmly believe that any individual who engages in sexual activity with a partner are ethically and morally obligated to tell them if they are aware that they are in fact carrying the HIV/AIDS virus. To me, this is a very important aspect to help in the prevention and control of the deadly epidemic of the HIV/AIDS virus. Quite simply put, “the individual who knows that he is HIV seropositive or who has reason to believe that he may be, has a moral duty to forewarn prospective partners of his HIV status and is responsible for their fate if he does not” (Erin & Harris,

Seeing information about a healthcare user in such terms makes me realise that some information is not necessarily in the public domain and therefore I have a privilege and responsibility to not only care for the patient but also for the knowledge about them that I am privy to. I realise that, although I have a duty to retain confidentiality, I may be placed in a position where the confidence has to also include other healthcare professionals and I need to involve the patient in such a situation (ibid).

Being a doctor requires a lot of hard work and commitment to help others and look for the patient’s well being, but has it always been this way? In “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot, she claims in paragraph 4 on page 130 that doctors used to withhold information from patients just so they won’t deny the test being made, and this way obtain their wanted benefit. The author’s claim is supported by the events of the patients from jail, Henrietta’s autopsy, and Henrietta’s cells overall.

* When a health professional, insurance provider or any staff members who have access to patient information decides to take a look at a patient's health portfolio and files, that employee must have a valid reason for doing so. According to HIPAA regulations, simply looking at a patient's information for no reason is illegal and grounds for a serious violation. This is hard to implement and even harder to prove; however, it is beneficial for the workplace to be aware of such policies and to improve the standard of professional healthcare that is offered.

According to Michael Moore,” health care should be between the doctor and the patient. If the doctor says something needs to be done, the government should guarantee it gets paid for.” I strongly agree with Michael Moore’s statement about how health care needs to be confidential. If anything should be done, then the federal government are the ones to offer it. Health information is to help doctors understand their patient’s medical issues, but there are some cases where patient’s medical records are shared with unknown people. Can medical facilities trust their employees with the health information of a patient?

Communication with patients will require effectiveness and compassion. In some cases of underserved and rural areas, as is the case of the recent HIV outbreak, education will be necessary. Educational communication will include diagnoses, causes, and treatment options. It will be imperative to provide this education in a manner which is forthright and caring, all while connecting with the patients on a personal level. This will enhance the provider-patient trust and will increase the likelihood of follow-up care and actions.

The short answer is, no. Collecting and receiving information about a possible threat to public health is sanctioned under HIPAA Privacy Rule. Although permission is not needed to report a communicable disease, the patient is notified of exposure to prevent or control any epidemic. Often times the patient is encouraged to speak with their spouses/partners, if they refuse to do so, it falls under the physicians responsibility to seek out those partners. Public health and safety is very important.

HIV and Aids is considered super protected medical information. HIV and Aids is a very contagious illness, which is spread by contact with bodily floods and sexual activity and drug use. It is highly protected, because most patients that get this disease does not want anyone to know, because it is a breach of their private lifestyle, their sexual preference in partners, and there are still the

Health care professionals are subject to a multitude of professional, legal, and ethical responsibilities which call for personal judgment to be utilized in such a manner as to protect clients as well as public wellness and interests. Overall considerations in handling such duties may be considered to be respect of a client’s autonomy, confidence, and recognition of obligations owed to all clients. While the aforementioned acts fall within the professional realm, there are also legal implications that guide care. Therefore, it can be said that ethical considerations occur in observation of legal responsibilities. Confidential information is perceived as private facts which are disclosed with the

“Professional integrity derives its substance from the fundamental goals or mission of the profession” (Wakin, 1996, para. 15). Meaning to say, individuals seek for a professional’s valued and ethical advice to which the professional holds their responsibility to maintain and exceeds the level of their expertise. For example, a general practitioner will treat a variety of patients, from all different walks of life with a plethora of different problems. It is their duty to diagnose and treat the patient to the best of their professional ability without prejudice. Another aspect of their duties is the principle of patient confidentiality. Medical professionals are legally bound to not divulge any information provided to them by their patients.

Although confidentiality is considered to be of great importance in therapeutic relationship, one must not assume it to be independent. In particular, confidentiality ought to be compromised whenever it conflicts with a higher moral value, such as the duty to safeguard human life. Most often physicians do not know if to disclose the HIV status of their patients to known contacts or if failure to do so may give rise to liability if the known contact becomes HIV positive. This is one of the most controversial issues in reporting and partner notification

According to the CDC (2015), more than one million people are living with HIV in the United States, and more than 50,000 become newly infected each year. Unfortunately, one in five Americans living with HIV are unaware of their infection. I believe using the strategy which stresses the use of the 10 essential services of public health will help reduce the incidence of HIV in our

Privacy and confidentiality are basic rights in our society. Safeguarding those rights, with respect to an individual’s personal health information, is our ethical and legal obligation as health care providers. Doing so in today’s health care environment is increasingly challenging (OJIN, 2005).

The confidentiality of patient visits and medical records are essential in providing the highest quality of health care. Under penalty of law, a patient's medical records or any other information regarding the patient may only be released with his or her authorization. Exceptions to this are certain cases specified by law for example, health care providers are required to report certain communicable diseases such as measles. Many organizations and laws have been developed to maintain patient's rights of confidentiality and access to their medical record. Guided by the principle that confidentiality is essential in developing strong trust between patients and healthcare providers, the

In medicine one of the things every patient is entitled to, no matter what, is their privacy. Since ancient times the privacy between a doctor and a patient has been somewhat of sacred thing. The patient has the right to release their health information to whomever they please. Even for doctors to access a patient’s medical history there has to be consent from the patient. In Mair’s article she reports about the case PD v Harvey in which PD upon asking for her future husband’s (FH) HIV test results was denied access because of lack of consent from FH. FH because of his right to confidentiality, despite having the disease, was able to lie and forge a pathology report which reported his HIV status as negative and in turn PD was lead to believe that FH actually received a negative result. If PD had been allowed the right to view the positive result or maybe even if the doctors would have taken into consideration her well-being PD could have avoided being infected (2009). Before testing a patient for HIV/AIDS a doctor should consult the patient in this consultation the patient should be educated about the disease, the testing process, and actions to be taken upon a positive result, including disclosure to sexual