Introduction
The disclosure of status of the physician has been an issue of debate for a long time. There is a lot of contention regarding the time in which it should be disclosed – after or before treatment. A critical view of different guidelines and the argument upon which this should be done raises many controversies in the legal system regarding the interactions between physicians and patients (Pozgar, 348). It can be noted that the controversy on the privacy of information about the health care was changed on 14th April, 2003 in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (Miller 406).
Critical issues
There are formalities that differentiate written consent from the oral consent. Suing a physician because he disclosed one’s status based on oral consent is legal; however, it is not legitimate. Both express the will to have his or her status disclosed. Satisfaction of authority requirement creates a red tape in the disclosure. Nevertheless, it is good to note the legality of each procedure. There is less legality in the oral instructions compared to the written consent that can act as evidence in any legal proceeding. Therefore, if not legal, it fails to be legitimate. The Pennsylvania court did not have adequate evidence before it made its ruling that favored the employers than the employees. It failed to acknowledge the role played by bioethics in guiding the medical procedures (Pozgar, 348).
The Pennsylvania court gave the hospital permission to disclose the status of HIV minimally to the resident physicians. Disclosure was to be done without the name of the resident. This is likely to raise anxiety among the patients due to the eagerness to know the person (Webber, 91). In addition, the North Carolina’s step of revocation of clinical privileges from the physician who fails to comply with the policy that need them to disclose the status of HIV positive inpatients denies the patients their basic rights. Although it is helpful to the physicians, it discriminates against the inpatient that has to give consent before disclosing his or her status to any other person.
The addition of another corpus that needs the disclosure of HIV/AIDS status to partners is as important as it is harmful if done without prior consent. Although such disclosure might be beneficial to the public interest, it is outweighed by the needs of confidentiality. Confidentiality requires one to access any medical attention without being revealed. For example, an HIV-positive surgeon who has his status revealed to the patient.
This could mean lost confidence and a breach of the contract by the employer. However, a surgeon is cut while practicing his duties just to be tested positive the next day. These two illustrations raise the controversies concerning the idea of confidentiality and disclosure. Neither of them would want his status be revealed without consent, yet both are at risk. The ruling of the court that authorized the courts to disclose doctor’s status is a further breach of a person’s right since it will further discriminate against such people (Miller 406).
Conclusion
Though the hospital has a duty to protect the patients as it is in the legal system, this requirement should extend to the workers. Partial application of laws fails to accomplish its sole purpose of protecting human life. If the court can rule that the hospital discloses the status of their employees to the patient, does it disregard the basic tenets of HIV/AIDS disclosure requirement which are universal? These requirements are confidentiality and consent. Therefore, application of Milton S. Hershey is not sufficient to be practical.
Works Cited
Miller, Robert D. Problems in Health Care Law. Sudbury (Mass.: Jones and Bartlett, 2006. Print.
Pozgar, George D. Legal Aspects of Health Care Administration. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2007. Print.
Webber, David W. Aids and the Law. Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2008. Print.