title: HIV-infected health care professionals: public threat or public sacrifice?
abstract: The ethical controversy surrounding the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines for restricting the practice of HIV-infected health professionals appears to hinge on whether we give priority to the rights of infected workers or patients. We cannot simply dismiss the concerns of patients as irrational, despite the low risks of transmission. Nor can we avoid the dispute about rights by claiming with the AMA that professionals have obligations to refrain from imposing "identifiable risks," however low, on patients. Nevertheless, allowing the full exercise of patient rights, either by giving patients the opportunity to know the risks they face and to switch providers, or by removing infected providers (compulsory switching), would make each of us worse off. This gives us adequate reason to reject these guidelines and to emphasize other infection control measures.
authors.affiliation: Department of Philosophy, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155.
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Daniels
mesh_terms: D000574:American Medical Association; D002487:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.; D003140:Communicable Disease Control / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006233:Persons with Disabilities / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D030881:Disclosure; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D035082:Federal Government; D015658:HIV Infections / Q000517:prevention & control* / Q000635:transmission; D006282:Health Personnel / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000592:standards*; D006509:Hepatitis B / Q000635:transmission; D006806:Human Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D016365:Liability, Legal; D028681:Moral Obligations; D009014:Morals; D010344:Patient Advocacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D011336:Probability; D012307:Risk Factors; D014342:Truth Disclosure; D035501:Uncertainty; D014481:United States