Milton S. Hersey Medical Center, Essay Example

Ultimately, it appears that case of the Application of Milton S. Hersey Medical Center (Disclosure of Physician’s HIV Status) has a valid result. While patients that have HIV are allowed to have certain rights to confidentiality, there are not laws in place that provide these same rights to the doctors. In fact, doctors have a responsibility to protect their patients from harm, and Dr. John Doe’s refusal to inform his patients about his potential contamination violates this promise. Ultimately, Dr. Doe’s contamination was a consequence of his own medical error, as he should have been wearing gloves or other protective gear to have prevented against this cross contamination.

Ultimately, the court made the correct decision. The decision was that the Dr.’s clients would be informed of his disease status if he had completed any surgical operations on them, therefore presenting a chance that their blood was contaminated through his infection. However, they agreed to keep his name anonymous, so this mass warning was intended to primarily inform the patient population so that they could get tested for HIV and undergo any necessary treatment immediately if they find that they are HIV positive. It was important for the court to make this decision quickly, as a lot of the harmful effects of the virus can be caught if it is treated at early stages. For example, AIDS will be prolonged.

While the court has demonstrated the legal need for the hospital to report the potential blood contamination to the Dr.’s patients, there is also an ethical need to do so. The doctor had already worked with more than 200 patients by the time that he had discovered that he was positive for the disease. Therefore, by failing to report this contamination, he was putting many lives in danger. It is reasonable that the court ordered a partial disclosure of the doctor’s disease status because this allowed him to retain some of his privacy while protecting the health of the individuals that he could have potentially impacted. Furthermore, it is likely that only a few of the individuals that were contacted would be able to include his role in the transmission of the disease.

This is an important case because it compares the rights of the doctor to the rights of the patients and demonstrates the importance of confidentiality and disease risk in the health care setting. While confidentiality is important, factors that influence the health of a large amount of people must be considered before the confidentiality of one individual. This is especially pertinent with regards to HIV cases. Since the disease has potential to spread from the potentially impacted individuals, the doctor could be indirectly responsible for causing a local epidemic if the transmission is not stopped. Furthermore, doctors should be aware of the need to conduct surgeries using proper gear and care to avoid such errors, as they should know that under their oath, the health of their patients should come before their own well-being.

References

Pozgar, G. (2012). Legal aspects of health care administration (11th ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.