Why is HIV treated differently? We should do whatever we can, within reason, to protect the healthcare worker and prevent HIV transmission. That’s the benefit of revealing source patient information to the clinician trying to craft the best preventive strategy. This outweighs the risk to that patient (the source) for the disclosure, which should be minimal “” after all, the information is being released to a clinician, who presumably understands the importance of patient confidentiality.
Related posts:
- When patients blog about doctors
- More Virginia Tech and HIPAA
- Patient hand-offs
- Full disclosure and bias
- Transparency in blogging
- Health 2.0
- Americans not getting enough preventive healthcare
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 1 comment }
The lawyer criminalized standard public health measures in the case of HIV. For example, reporting, partner tracing and quarantive were banned.
Medicine could have resisted. They could have reversed these laws, enacted to further homosexual promiscuity agenda unimpeded, and PC. Medicine is powerful enough, they could have done that by just asking.
Why was there medical silence?
HIV saved internal medicine. In the 1980’s, aggressive management of hypertension and other prevention measures had markedly dropped organ damage. Hospitals had 50% occupancies in big cities. There was growing internal medicine unemployment.
AIDS comes along. Solved. All hospitals fill to over-capacity. There is now a shortage of internists.
Perfect disease for medical business.
1) slow, expensive death, affecting all organ systems, requiring the care of all specialists.
2) correct populations affected
3) non-contagious to general population.
The natural experiment comparison experience is Cuba. People traced, quarantined. No HIV problem despite low sexual ethics of the population.
Comments on this entry are closed.