Divergent ethical perspectives on the duty-to-warn principle with HIV patients.
This article presents the case of an HIV-positive client who reported having sexual relations with an unknowing partner. The issue raised is whether the therapist was required to warn the unknowing partner, similar to the Tarasoff mandate that is imposed on therapists. The case is analyzed from an ethical framework similar to that presented by Beauchamp and Childress (1994). Two opinions are presented, each leading to different conclusions about whether the therapist should inform the unknowing partner. It is concluded that although such analysis is valuable in aiding the therapist in his or her decision-making process, no clear professional standard for the management of the problem is evident.
Huprich
Steven K
SK
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Baylor University, P.O. Box 97334, Waco, TX 76798-7334, USA.
Fuller
Kristi M
KM
Schneider
Robert B
RB
D026686:Beneficence; D032781:Codes of Ethics; D003219:Confidentiality / Q000941:ethics*; D017007:Duty to Warn / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D026689:Ethical Analysis; D028663:Ethical Theory; D004995:Ethics, Professional; D006679:HIV Seropositivity; D006282:Health Personnel; D018451:Homosexuality, Male; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011369:Professional-Patient Relations; D011584:Psychology / Q000592:standards*; D011613:Psychotherapy; D012747:Sexual Partners; D013781:Texas