Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucla-cs!jay@banzai.PCC.COM From: jay@banzai.PCC.COM (Jay Schuster) Newsgroups: sci.med.aids Subject: Re: HIV Status Policy Message-ID: <38314@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Date: 23 Aug 90 16:58:32 GMT References: <38187@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <38271@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU Organization: The People's Computer Company, Williston, VT Lines: 30 Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu Note: Copyright 1990 by Daniel R. Greening. Permission granted for Note: non-commercial reproduction. Archive-number: 2408 In <38271@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> brugler@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dale P Brugler) writes: >I beleive that the medical workers in a hospital should be informed if >a patient is HIV positive. >However, in 3 major hopsitals in my city >(Columbus, Oh) it is policy that workers not be informed if a patient >is positive. The main hospital here (Medical Center Hospital of Vermont) is on Universal Precautions. As I understand it, this means that you are to assume that everyone is HIV/HepB/place-favorite-blood-borne- disease-here infected. >The purpose of such policies are to make all personel cautious with everyone. >I disagree with such a policy. If I am sent to a room to draw blood >from a patient, I want to know that there is a chance that I could be >infected. The problem seems to be that you and other people want to know so that you can be *more* careful with the infected patient. The hospital doesn't want to test everyone, or deal with the liability in the case of a messed up test, or deal with the privacy issues involved (once everyone in your town knows that you are HIV positive, you will get treated very differently -- and although that stuff is *supposed* to be private, medical staff tend to blab more stuff than is necessary most of the time, from personal experience). -- Jay Schuster uunet!uvm-gen!banzai!jay, attmail!banzai!jay The People's Computer Company `Revolutionary Programming'