Case 12: An HIV infoected surgeon and a duty to disclose A surgeon just found out he has HIV. A study found that surgeons cut themselves on average 2.5 times for every 100 surgical procedures and therefore one-third of those cases the patient is touched with the instrument carrying the surgeons blood. For every 1000 cases in which an HIV infected surgeons blood mixes with that of a patient, a patient will become infected in AT MOST 3 cases. Therefore there is a risk that a patient operated on by this surgeon will get infected. option 1: surgeon tells patients that he has HIV and they have a risk of contracting it option 2: surgeon doesnt tell the patients and operates without informing them Question 1: Suppose the positions were reversed and a patient is the one infected. Is the patient obligated to inform the surgeon of her infection? Question 2: Should it be required that this information is disclosed in the informed consent? Question 3: If the surgeon does not disclose this information is he morally obligated to quit operating?
I think the doctor is morally obligated to inform the patient of his condition. If he does not want to publically proclaim his disease, then I do beleive he should stop operating. Most people get into the medical field to help people, and this surgeon would be putting his patients in danger, not helping them. If the roles were reversed I think that the doctor would want to know that there was a chance he could get HIV that his patient was infected with. I should be required that this information be given to every patient that comes to this doctor.
I think the doctor is morally eithical to inform the patient that he is infected with HIV. If the roles were reversed, I think the patient should tell the surgeon. But also if the patient was getting surgery, their blood would be tested more than likely before their surgery. It is right for the information to be disclosed in the inform consent. It would be legal and a signature would have to be provided. I believe that he should stop operating if the information is not dislosed. He should be morally obligated to quit operating. But more than likely, the surgeon is probably embarrassed to admit that he has HIV because after he does he may not have any more patients to tend to.
In the case where a life threatening disease is involved, the duty to inform to avoid maleficence is ALWAYS predominant to the sacredness of confidentiality. To operate on a patient and run the risk of giving them HIV is a form of russian roulette that not everyone wants to play. Yes, there is a very slim chance, but if you had a gun with only one bullet and a thousand rounds, would you let someone fire it at you? The answer to that question may be a yes or a no depending on the circumstances, but it should be up to the person on the wrong end of the gun.
This case is a very hard one to deal with. I believe that with the chances of something happening the doctor must tell the patient about his illness and the risks. Giving the patient this information might scare them but if it means he or she could become infected it is ethically right to do. Now dealing with question one the patient should tell the surgeon incase anything happens during the surgery, safety should be the #1 priority of everyone. When looking at question #3, I'm not sure if the doctor must quit say he does operations that do not involve him being able to cut himself, then it should not change effect the person. I think as long as patients know the truth there should not be a large problem, they can keep the surgeon or change to another one. The doctor should be aware this can and probably will happen.
This is a very sensitive issue but I strongly believe that the surgeon should inform his patients of his condition even if the probability of the patients contracting HIV is small it is still a huge risk and a safety issue. Likewise, the patient should also inform the surgeon because he will come in contact with her blood and is still at risk for potentially contracting the disease himself. As for the 3rd question, I agree with Brooke, he doesn't necessarily need to quit, he can practice in a field in which his patients will not be at risk of contracting HIV
I don’t find this case to be as sensitive as some of you may. I really see it as a just the right thing to do. Even if the probability of the patient contracting HIV may be small risk due to today advancement in the United States I just think this is something that you cannot just withhold. I don't think that is fair that just because he has contracted HIV he must be alienated from society and forced to quit his job, however, I do think that it's not safe for him to stay in the current position for the obvious reasons.
I believe that the surgeon should DEFINITELY disclose this information. I know that it is a very small risk but I would not want that surgeon operation on me, no matter how judgmental that may sound. A person only has one body and one life to live. Getting surgery is risky enough, and in my opinion, an HIV+ doctor just includes one more risk to the procedure. I know everyone will not agree with this. It is a very difficult situation, but I believe an alternative is that the doctor could still practice medicine, just not surgery. If the role was reversed, I believe that the patient should also disclose this information. This surgeon, as well as the rest of the surgical team, are putting themselves at risk if they do not know this patient is HIV +. If something were to happen such as a cut, or a ripped glove, someone may follow standard precautions such as washing their hands, but in order to keep everyone safe, the surgical team must be informed in case something does go wrong so they can protect themselves and the patient by taking the proper measures. I believe that if the surgeon chooses not to disclose this information, he is morally obligated to quit operating because he is putting these patients at risk without their knowledge or consent.
Case 12: An HIV infoected surgeon and a duty to disclose
ReplyDeleteA surgeon just found out he has HIV. A study found that surgeons cut themselves on average 2.5 times for every 100 surgical procedures and therefore one-third of those cases the patient is touched with the instrument carrying the surgeons blood. For every 1000 cases in which an HIV infected surgeons blood mixes with that of a patient, a patient will become infected in AT MOST 3 cases. Therefore there is a risk that a patient operated on by this surgeon will get infected.
option 1: surgeon tells patients that he has HIV and they have a risk of contracting it
option 2: surgeon doesnt tell the patients and operates without informing them
Question 1: Suppose the positions were reversed and a patient is the one infected. Is the patient obligated to inform the surgeon of her infection?
Question 2: Should it be required that this information is disclosed in the informed consent?
Question 3: If the surgeon does not disclose this information is he morally obligated to quit operating?
I think the doctor is morally obligated to inform the patient of his condition. If he does not want to publically proclaim his disease, then I do beleive he should stop operating. Most people get into the medical field to help people, and this surgeon would be putting his patients in danger, not helping them. If the roles were reversed I think that the doctor would want to know that there was a chance he could get HIV that his patient was infected with. I should be required that this information be given to every patient that comes to this doctor.
DeleteI think the doctor is morally eithical to inform the patient that he is infected with HIV. If the roles were reversed, I think the patient should tell the surgeon. But also if the patient was getting surgery, their blood would be tested more than likely before their surgery. It is right for the information to be disclosed in the inform consent. It would be legal and a signature would have to be provided. I believe that he should stop operating if the information is not dislosed. He should be morally obligated to quit operating. But more than likely, the surgeon is probably embarrassed to admit that he has HIV because after he does he may not have any more patients to tend to.
DeleteIn the case where a life threatening disease is involved, the duty to inform to avoid maleficence is ALWAYS predominant to the sacredness of confidentiality. To operate on a patient and run the risk of giving them HIV is a form of russian roulette that not everyone wants to play. Yes, there is a very slim chance, but if you had a gun with only one bullet and a thousand rounds, would you let someone fire it at you? The answer to that question may be a yes or a no depending on the circumstances, but it should be up to the person on the wrong end of the gun.
ReplyDeleteThis case is a very hard one to deal with. I believe that with the chances of something happening the doctor must tell the patient about his illness and the risks. Giving the patient this information might scare them but if it means he or she could become infected it is ethically right to do. Now dealing with question one the patient should tell the surgeon incase anything happens during the surgery, safety should be the #1 priority of everyone. When looking at question #3, I'm not sure if the doctor must quit say he does operations that do not involve him being able to cut himself, then it should not change effect the person. I think as long as patients know the truth there should not be a large problem, they can keep the surgeon or change to another one. The doctor should be aware this can and probably will happen.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very sensitive issue but I strongly believe that the surgeon should inform his patients of his condition even if the probability of the patients contracting HIV is small it is still a huge risk and a safety issue. Likewise, the patient should also inform the surgeon because he will come in contact with her blood and is still at risk for potentially contracting the disease himself. As for the 3rd question, I agree with Brooke, he doesn't necessarily need to quit, he can practice in a field in which his patients will not be at risk of contracting HIV
ReplyDeleteI don’t find this case to be as sensitive as some of you may. I really see it as a just the right thing to do. Even if the probability of the patient contracting HIV may be small risk due to today advancement in the United States I just think this is something that you cannot just withhold. I don't think that is fair that just because he has contracted HIV he must be alienated from society and forced to quit his job, however, I do think that it's not safe for him to stay in the current position for the obvious reasons.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the surgeon should DEFINITELY disclose this information. I know that it is a very small risk but I would not want that surgeon operation on me, no matter how judgmental that may sound. A person only has one body and one life to live. Getting surgery is risky enough, and in my opinion, an HIV+ doctor just includes one more risk to the procedure. I know everyone will not agree with this. It is a very difficult situation, but I believe an alternative is that the doctor could still practice medicine, just not surgery. If the role was reversed, I believe that the patient should also disclose this information. This surgeon, as well as the rest of the surgical team, are putting themselves at risk if they do not know this patient is HIV +. If something were to happen such as a cut, or a ripped glove, someone may follow standard precautions such as washing their hands, but in order to keep everyone safe, the surgical team must be informed in case something does go wrong so they can protect themselves and the patient by taking the proper measures. I believe that if the surgeon chooses not to disclose this information, he is morally obligated to quit operating because he is putting these patients at risk without their knowledge or consent.
ReplyDelete