In the current trend of healthcare, health professionals are expected to protect patient confidentiality in every way possible. This includes general conversations that may be held on elevators, in the cafeteria, even one to other when it pertains to patient care. In the case of Brian P the HIV-positive gay man in this case, Dr. A must override his obligation of patient confidentially in turn for a “duty to warn” because of Brian P’s decision to not inform his current partner of his health status. HIV is a potential deadly disease and in many recent legal cases people with this deadly disease have been charged with attempted murder for deceitfully and intentionally spreading this disease to others. Dr. A has done what he could as a professional caregiver to educate and encourage Brian to inform George S (partner) to get tested for HIV, but since Brian chooses not to Dr. A must exercise a paternalism role. The physician’s oath of Dr. A is to protect and care for the lives other human beings. The risk of harm that comes from not informing this dangerous information to George S can kill him and anyone else if he in turn may choose to have unprotected, unknowing, uninformed HIV sex with another person.
There always seems to be argument about confidentiality. If a person has a disease that is spread and potentially deadly to another human being with whom they live with, then I believe it should be a law that that person knows. People should have an option of taking the risk of getting a disease. If you love someone you usually are ready to give your life for them. It seems to me that Brian doesn't love his partner or he wouldn't want to take a chance to killing him.
Brian P's decision not to inform his current partner of his HIV status creates imminent threat of serious and irreversible harm. Breach of confidentiality is justified. Brian is selfish and loves only him self. I agree BRD2EZ that Brian doesn't love his partner.
In the current trend of healthcare, health professionals are expected to protect patient confidentiality in every way possible. This includes general conversations that may be held on elevators, in the cafeteria, even one to other when it pertains to patient care. In the case of Brian P the HIV-positive gay man in this case, Dr. A must override his obligation of patient confidentially in turn for a “duty to warn” because of Brian P’s decision to not inform his current partner of his health status. HIV is a potential deadly disease and in many recent legal cases people with this deadly disease have been charged with attempted murder for deceitfully and intentionally spreading this disease to others. Dr. A has done what he could as a professional caregiver to educate and encourage Brian to inform George S (partner) to get tested for HIV, but since Brian chooses not to Dr. A must exercise a paternalism role. The physician’s oath of Dr. A is to protect and care for the lives other human beings. The risk of harm that comes from not informing this dangerous information to George S can kill him and anyone else if he in turn may choose to have unprotected, unknowing, uninformed HIV sex with another person.
ReplyDeleteThere always seems to be argument about confidentiality. If a person has a disease that is spread and potentially deadly to another human being with whom they live with, then I believe it should be a law that that person knows. People should have an option of taking the risk of getting a disease. If you love someone you usually are ready to give your life for them. It seems to me that Brian doesn't love his partner or he wouldn't want to take a chance to killing him.
ReplyDeleteBrian P's decision not to inform his current partner of his HIV status creates imminent threat of serious and irreversible harm. Breach of confidentiality is justified. Brian is selfish and loves only him self. I agree BRD2EZ that Brian doesn't love his partner.
ReplyDelete