This is a very hard case to consider. In one way, the Dr. doesn't necessarily need to refrain from doing surgeries, he just needs to take extra precautions when performing surgeries, on the other hand, I want to say that Dr. M should inform the patient's of the risk to them, but then again, this will only induce great fear into the patient, when they are already undergoing stress due to the upcoming surgery they must encounter. Also, if the Dr. informs the patient of his infection, and the patient shares the news with others, then word could and probably would get around that the Dr. is infected, and what would that do his reputation; would it cause him to resign from medicine for good, or possible cause him to become depressed and suicidal. There are so many routes this case could take, and to be honest I am not sure which one I believe to be the correct one.
Personally my view differs from Camille's, I think he might have an obligation to refrain from preforming surgery however, if he did choose to continue to perform surgeries then he would need to inform the patients so they could be aware of the risks even though they are slim. If it was a reverse situation and a patient was HIV positive then the surgeon would be informed as would the rest of the care team.
In this case, I believe the doctor has an obligation to inform his patient that he has HIV. HIV is a serious disease that can potentially kill a person. With saying this I also believe that he should refrain form performing any surgeries unless the patient insists on having this surgeon to do so. Whether it is trust or the ranking of the surgeon I believe it would be very risking because you could be part of the 1/3 who could contract HIV.
If this case was reverse to whether the patient should inform the doctor, I strongly believe the patient has an obligation to tell them if they are conscious and/or capable of speaking. If the patient has HIV it is possible for the surgeon or doctor to be at risk of contacting the disease, as well as, others who are treating her.
I think that the doctor needs to inform the patients of the risk. As Melissa said, if the situation was the reverse and there was risk to the doctor, he would have been informed. The doctor does not need to stop practicing surgery, but certainly needs to be sure he is always taking precautions so he does not infect patients accidentally.
The patient has the duty to tell her doctors and nurses about her diagnoses. Because it is likely that her caregivers will come into contact with her blood at some point, even though they should already be using universal precautions, they still need to know in order to not only protect themselves, but also to give better treatment to the patient by knowing her whole health history.
I think it is morally right and as an obligation for the surgeon to refrain from performing surgery with immediate effect upon realization of the fact that he is HIV positive. Otherwise, he is obligated as well to inform the patients he plans to operate on that he has been infected with the HIV virus. Since there are so many risks involved during surgery operations and this would be a great offense if the surgeon would go ahead with the operation intentionally. If now the patient was the one infected instead, still it is paramount to carry out HIV tests for the patients before proceeding with the operation since may be Dorothy could not talk and was in a serious condition. Were the patient in a condition where she could talk, then she is obligated to let the task force know. I think it would be more helpful for HIV testing before beginning the operations. Therefore, it is important to know the patient's health history before doing anything surgery related.
I agree with Melissa and Marion in saying that the patient should be informed of the risks. The doctor does not have to totally stop preforming surgery but if the patient does not feel comfortable, after knowing the risks, then he might not get to preform it on that patient. If the patient knows the risks and decides to do the surgery anyway, the patient has been informed of the risks, even if they may be small. This relates to what we talked about last week with informing patients of all risks. If the patient were the one that was HIV positive the doctor would have a right to know and I also agree that in this situation the patient has a right to know. I believe that the patient should be informed of the doctor's HIV state and if they want to proceed with the risks then he can preform the surgery.
I believe that the doctor does have an obligation to inform the patient that he is HIV positive. Beyond that, it is up to the patient to determine whether or not he/she wants the doctor to perform surgery.
Similarly, I feel that patients have an obligation to inform their doctors about any infectious diseases that they have. Doctors and nurses are already exposed to more germs than many people because of their profession. They should not have to deal with the additional dangers of potential infection by a disease that is known by a patient but is kept secret.
I feel like the doctor should have the obligation to tell the patient or patients about the risk of receiving HIV if he perfoms their surgeries. It would be a smart thing to do because there are statistics to back up that only 3 out of 1000 cases would catch HIV if the doctor cuts himself during the surgery. I dont think that this is such a risk for him to disclose, if the stats were higher then I feel like it would be a different story. Since the docotrs ask patients if they have any precautions to watch out for, the doctor has the same right to tell what he/she may or maynot have.
I too disagree with Camille. The doctor doesn't really need to refrain from surgeries, but he does have an obligation to inform his patients. They have a right to know that there is a risk, even thought it is extremely small. Telling the patients he is infected is better than not telling them and having the patient sue him for it. I think the patient is obligated to tell the doctor if they are infected. This way the doctor can take extra precautions, and avoid contracting it to spread to other patients he may operate on.
Would telling the patient about the risk of getting HIV be considered "good medical practice"? If the rate of infection is 3 at most in every 1000 that is a 0.3% chance. What if Dr. M is the best at what he does. Is it morally ethical to force someone to choose a less qualified surgeon? Why worry someone with a chance that is not even a half of a whole percentage? And say they do cut themselves and somehow their blood comes in contact with the patient, the chance of obtaining the HIV virus from that amount of blood is 0.1%. So I see no reason the surgeon would need to disclose this information if they were careful. Accidents do happen, and mistakes are made. But HIV negative doctors make mistakes too. They don't have to disclose things such as, I've left multiple sponges in my patients, their is a 0.1% chance I just may leave one in you. Sometimes it is best not to know.
Although I see Christy's point of view, I feel like even the slightest risk of spreading any kind of potentially deadly disease deserves attention to the patient. I think doctors should have to inform patients of any risks necessary, including spread of bodily functions. Although this may be detrimental to a surgeon's career, the percentage is so small that some patients may agree to procede regardless. I also believe it is important that patients HIV status is known prior to any surgery. Once again, this is not to "out" a patient's status, but protect the doctors, etc. of any potential risks so that any precautions may be taken.
Dr. M has been given the knowledge of being able to perform procedures that are lifesaving to the human being; therefore I think that the the patient of all high risk complications related to the surgery, the doctor is obligated to tell the patient that he/she is infected. I doctor should continue to perform surgeries. Because it’s the job of the doctor to inform do believe that Dorothea must inform the doctor that she has the virus and because of that, I believe that the doctor has the right to refuse the surgery but I know there are precautions that a health care professional can perform in order to remain infection free.
The doctor should be able to continue operating since he has done what he needs to be in that field, but like many have said before he is obligated to tell the pts the risk of getting HIV from him when he operates. But like angie said he does have the statistics to back him up when it comes to protecting his reputation. If the positions were reversed I believe it would be important for the dr to know his pt has HIV and if he is not careful during surgery he could get it too. The dr has a right to protect himself because he has a life of his own too and is entitled to know what could drastically alter it.
I think the doctor should not be able to continue operating. He could spread HIV to other patients during surgeries. If Dr. M does continue to operate, he should take extra precautions during the surgery to be safe, not cut himself, and not mix his blood, with the patient's. I think the patients should be informed that the surgeon is HIV positive because if the patient becomes positive after the surgery, the patient might sue the hospital saying that the doctor infected them during the surgery without their knowledge of him being HIV positive. I would imagine all of Dorothea's medical history would be on her charts or in a file, and the doctor would be accessible to it.
I believe that Dr. M has the right to continue doing surgery. He has worked hard to get to that point in his career. He should however, disclose the information that he has HIV to his patients. If he were to infect them and they found out later that he was infected, there could be problems for him and the hospital he performs at if he didn't tell his patients. He needs to make sure he uses extra precautions to not cut himself during surgery. Dr. M will have access to Dorothea's chart, so even if she doesn't inform her surgeon herself, I am sure that it would be in her chart with her having to disclose the information. But, it would be beneficial to the both of them if she would disclose that she was positive so Dr M. can take more precautions not to get infected and to make sure he stays clea and sterile at all times. HIV patients usually are more prone to getting sick because their immune system is compromised.
I believe that Dr. M does not have an obligation to refrain from performing surgery. However he does have an obligation to inform his patients that he is HIV postive. If the patient does become infected, down the road it could cause legal issues for the surgeon. That does not mean that he will infect people but that he needs to take the precautions if it should happen. Dorothea does have the obligation to inform the surgeon of her status. The surgeon does need to know he is at risk, and that the patient is at increased risk for infection because of a compromised immune system. It would benefit both the patient and surgeon if the info was disclosed.
Personally, I think Dr. M doesn't have to refrain from the surgery as long as he takes the right safety precautions. However, I do think he should inform his patient that he is HIV positive. The patients have a right to know about information that can affect their health, even though there is a very small risk that they could catch HIV during surgery. If the situation was switched, I would also say that Dorothea is obligated to tell Dr. M about her infection because also his health could be in danger during the surgery, so he has the right to know also.
I agree with Jaimie, he should still be able to perform surgery. But just like he must disclose possible outcomes and dangers of the procedure, he should make it known that he does in fact have HIV and explain to the pt the likelihood for exchange of blood and whatnot. HIV is just another risk of surgery with this MD.
I believe that the pt has a right to know and also the right to choose a different doctor. With HIV, some people will understand the risks and go on with the surgery and others will be spooked and request a different surgeon.
I do not believe that Dr. M should refrain from performing the surgery. However, I do believe that the patient has a right to know the risk of contracting the virus from the surgery, although the patient should also know that the risk is very small. Also, if the situation was reversed, the patient should inform the doctor of her HIV status. Informing the other person one way or another would not be done to out the patient or doctor, but to protect the other person and allow them to take the necessary precautions.
I also agree with others that the Dr. should still be able to perform the surgery. But the patient has every right to know that the Dr. has HIV and that the disease has a small chance to be transferred to the patient. When the patient knows that he has the human immunodiciency virus, the patient has every right to transfer to a different doctor if they feel that it is a greater risk for them to receive HIV.
In the situation that the patient has HIV, the patient needs to tell the doctor (if they know they have it). The Dr. neeeds to know to protect himself. Just like the lady who came in and said whenever you are taking care of someone just think that they have something wrong with them and always protect yourself no matter what you are doing. So if the patient did not tell the doctor then the dr. should always protect themselves whenever they are coming into contact with blood.
Dr. M definitely needs to disclose this information to a patient before surgery. He should not need to stop his practice altogether though. The patient also has a right to tell the doctor that she is infected. The doctor is only trying to help the patient, he should be informed of any risk to him. The risks in surgery are not only to the patient. Anyone in the surgery room could come in contact with that blood.
In the case of the HIV infected surgeon, a difficult decsion has to be made. In defense of the surgeon, he has his right to privacy. On the side of the patient, the have their right to safety. The problem is though neither can have their cake and eat it too. I believe the best route to go would be for the surgeon to refrain from performing surgery. Not by any means in a discriminatory way but lets say a child care worker comes to work with pink eye. The pink eye wont spread unless the child care worker touches her eye but do you still want them there touching the kids with the risk, even though it's just pink eye? If I personally were the surgeon I would feel horrible if I infected a patient just because I wanted to keep performing surgery.
I agree with most posts. I think Dr. M should definitely inform his patients that he has HIV. I think he should be able to still practice, but he should tell his patients and take many extra precautions to not spread the virus. I think if the situation was reversed, Dorothea would be obligated to tell Dr. M. HIV is a serious condition and if a person has risk of being infected, they should know about it.
Dr.M should inform his patient's of his HIV status and inform them of the risk level. Being honest is the best way to go because if he did infect a patient and they did not know he was HIV+ then he could lose his practice simply because people wouldn't want him as doctor. It would be best for all parties, if he inform his patients. I also feel that patients should tell their MD's if they are HIV+ because it's a huge risk for anyone caring for them. By not informing people who care for you as a patient your puting those people at risk.
This is a very hard case to consider. In one way, the Dr. doesn't necessarily need to refrain from doing surgeries, he just needs to take extra precautions when performing surgeries, on the other hand, I want to say that Dr. M should inform the patient's of the risk to them, but then again, this will only induce great fear into the patient, when they are already undergoing stress due to the upcoming surgery they must encounter. Also, if the Dr. informs the patient of his infection, and the patient shares the news with others, then word could and probably would get around that the Dr. is infected, and what would that do his reputation; would it cause him to resign from medicine for good, or possible cause him to become depressed and suicidal. There are so many routes this case could take, and to be honest I am not sure which one I believe to be the correct one.
ReplyDeletePersonally my view differs from Camille's, I think he might have an obligation to refrain from preforming surgery however, if he did choose to continue to perform surgeries then he would need to inform the patients so they could be aware of the risks even though they are slim. If it was a reverse situation and a patient was HIV positive then the surgeon would be informed as would the rest of the care team.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, I believe the doctor has an obligation to inform his patient that he has HIV. HIV is a serious disease that can potentially kill a person. With saying this I also believe that he should refrain form performing any surgeries unless the patient insists on having this surgeon to do so. Whether it is trust or the ranking of the surgeon I believe it would be very risking because you could be part of the 1/3 who could contract HIV.
ReplyDeleteIf this case was reverse to whether the patient should inform the doctor, I strongly believe the patient has an obligation to tell them if they are conscious and/or capable of speaking. If the patient has HIV it is possible for the surgeon or doctor to be at risk of contacting the disease, as well as, others who are treating her.
I think that the doctor needs to inform the patients of the risk. As Melissa said, if the situation was the reverse and there was risk to the doctor, he would have been informed. The doctor does not need to stop practicing surgery, but certainly needs to be sure he is always taking precautions so he does not infect patients accidentally.
ReplyDeleteThe patient has the duty to tell her doctors and nurses about her diagnoses. Because it is likely that her caregivers will come into contact with her blood at some point, even though they should already be using universal precautions, they still need to know in order to not only protect themselves, but also to give better treatment to the patient by knowing her whole health history.
I think it is morally right and as an obligation for the surgeon to refrain from performing surgery with immediate effect upon realization of the fact that he is HIV positive. Otherwise, he is obligated as well to inform the patients he plans to operate on that he has been infected with the HIV virus. Since there are so many risks involved during surgery operations and this would be a great offense if the surgeon would go ahead with the operation intentionally. If now the patient was the one infected instead, still it is paramount to carry out HIV tests for the patients before proceeding with the operation since may be Dorothy could not talk and was in a serious condition. Were the patient in a condition where she could talk, then she is obligated to let the task force know. I think it would be more helpful for HIV testing before beginning the operations. Therefore, it is important to know the patient's health history before doing anything surgery related.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Melissa and Marion in saying that the patient should be informed of the risks. The doctor does not have to totally stop preforming surgery but if the patient does not feel comfortable, after knowing the risks, then he might not get to preform it on that patient. If the patient knows the risks and decides to do the surgery anyway, the patient has been informed of the risks, even if they may be small. This relates to what we talked about last week with informing patients of all risks. If the patient were the one that was HIV positive the doctor would have a right to know and I also agree that in this situation the patient has a right to know. I believe that the patient should be informed of the doctor's HIV state and if they want to proceed with the risks then he can preform the surgery.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the doctor does have an obligation to inform the patient that he is HIV positive. Beyond that, it is up to the patient to determine whether or not he/she wants the doctor to perform surgery.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, I feel that patients have an obligation to inform their doctors about any infectious diseases that they have. Doctors and nurses are already exposed to more germs than many people because of their profession. They should not have to deal with the additional dangers of potential infection by a disease that is known by a patient but is kept secret.
I feel like the doctor should have the obligation to tell the patient or patients about the risk of receiving HIV if he perfoms their surgeries. It would be a smart thing to do because there are statistics to back up that only 3 out of 1000 cases would catch HIV if the doctor cuts himself during the surgery. I dont think that this is such a risk for him to disclose, if the stats were higher then I feel like it would be a different story. Since the docotrs ask patients if they have any precautions to watch out for, the doctor has the same right to tell what he/she may or maynot have.
ReplyDeleteI too disagree with Camille. The doctor doesn't really need to refrain from surgeries, but he does have an obligation to inform his patients. They have a right to know that there is a risk, even thought it is extremely small. Telling the patients he is infected is better than not telling them and having the patient sue him for it. I think the patient is obligated to tell the doctor if they are infected. This way the doctor can take extra precautions, and avoid contracting it to spread to other patients he may operate on.
ReplyDeleteWould telling the patient about the risk of getting HIV be considered "good medical practice"? If the rate of infection is 3 at most in every 1000 that is a 0.3% chance. What if Dr. M is the best at what he does. Is it morally ethical to force someone to choose a less qualified surgeon? Why worry someone with a chance that is not even a half of a whole percentage? And say they do cut themselves and somehow their blood comes in contact with the patient, the chance of obtaining the HIV virus from that amount of blood is 0.1%. So I see no reason the surgeon would need to disclose this information if they were careful. Accidents do happen, and mistakes are made. But HIV negative doctors make mistakes too. They don't have to disclose things such as, I've left multiple sponges in my patients, their is a 0.1% chance I just may leave one in you. Sometimes it is best not to know.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I see Christy's point of view, I feel like even the slightest risk of spreading any kind of potentially deadly disease deserves attention to the patient. I think doctors should have to inform patients of any risks necessary, including spread of bodily functions. Although this may be detrimental to a surgeon's career, the percentage is so small that some patients may agree to procede regardless. I also believe it is important that patients HIV status is known prior to any surgery. Once again, this is not to "out" a patient's status, but protect the doctors, etc. of any potential risks so that any precautions may be taken.
ReplyDeleteDr. M has been given the knowledge of being able to perform procedures that are lifesaving to the human being; therefore I think that the the patient of all high risk complications related to the surgery, the doctor is obligated to tell the patient that he/she is infected. I doctor should continue to perform surgeries. Because it’s the job of the doctor to inform do believe that Dorothea must inform the doctor that she has the virus and because of that, I believe that the doctor has the right to refuse the surgery but I know there are precautions that a health care professional can perform in order to remain infection free.
ReplyDeleteThe doctor should be able to continue operating since he has done what he needs to be in that field, but like many have said before he is obligated to tell the pts the risk of getting HIV from him when he operates. But like angie said he does have the statistics to back him up when it comes to protecting his reputation. If the positions were reversed I believe it would be important for the dr to know his pt has HIV and if he is not careful during surgery he could get it too. The dr has a right to protect himself because he has a life of his own too and is entitled to know what could drastically alter it.
ReplyDeleteI think the doctor should not be able to continue operating. He could spread HIV to other patients during surgeries. If Dr. M does continue to operate, he should take extra precautions during the surgery to be safe, not cut himself, and not mix his blood, with the patient's. I think the patients should be informed that the surgeon is HIV positive because if the patient becomes positive after the surgery, the patient might sue the hospital saying that the doctor infected them during the surgery without their knowledge of him being HIV positive. I would imagine all of Dorothea's medical history would be on her charts or in a file, and the doctor would be accessible to it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Dr. M has the right to continue doing surgery. He has worked hard to get to that point in his career. He should however, disclose the information that he has HIV to his patients. If he were to infect them and they found out later that he was infected, there could be problems for him and the hospital he performs at if he didn't tell his patients. He needs to make sure he uses extra precautions to not cut himself during surgery. Dr. M will have access to Dorothea's chart, so even if she doesn't inform her surgeon herself, I am sure that it would be in her chart with her having to disclose the information. But, it would be beneficial to the both of them if she would disclose that she was positive so Dr M. can take more precautions not to get infected and to make sure he stays clea and sterile at all times. HIV patients usually are more prone to getting sick because their immune system is compromised.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Dr. M does not have an obligation to refrain from performing surgery. However he does have an obligation to inform his patients that he is HIV postive. If the patient does become infected, down the road it could cause legal issues for the surgeon. That does not mean that he will infect people but that he needs to take the precautions if it should happen. Dorothea does have the obligation to inform the surgeon of her status. The surgeon does need to know he is at risk, and that the patient is at increased risk for infection because of a compromised immune system. It would benefit both the patient and surgeon if the info was disclosed.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think Dr. M doesn't have to refrain from the surgery as long as he takes the right safety precautions. However, I do think he should inform his patient that he is HIV positive. The patients have a right to know about information that can affect their health, even though there is a very small risk that they could catch HIV during surgery. If the situation was switched, I would also say that Dorothea is obligated to tell Dr. M about her infection because also his health could be in danger during the surgery, so he has the right to know also.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jaimie, he should still be able to perform surgery. But just like he must disclose possible outcomes and dangers of the procedure, he should make it known that he does in fact have HIV and explain to the pt the likelihood for exchange of blood and whatnot. HIV is just another risk of surgery with this MD.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the pt has a right to know and also the right to choose a different doctor. With HIV, some people will understand the risks and go on with the surgery and others will be spooked and request a different surgeon.
I do not believe that Dr. M should refrain from performing the surgery. However, I do believe that the patient has a right to know the risk of contracting the virus from the surgery, although the patient should also know that the risk is very small. Also, if the situation was reversed, the patient should inform the doctor of her HIV status. Informing the other person one way or another would not be done to out the patient or doctor, but to protect the other person and allow them to take the necessary precautions.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with others that the Dr. should still be able to perform the surgery. But the patient has every right to know that the Dr. has HIV and that the disease has a small chance to be transferred to the patient. When the patient knows that he has the human immunodiciency virus, the patient has every right to transfer to a different doctor if they feel that it is a greater risk for them to receive HIV.
ReplyDeleteIn the situation that the patient has HIV, the patient needs to tell the doctor (if they know they have it). The Dr. neeeds to know to protect himself. Just like the lady who came in and said whenever you are taking care of someone just think that they have something wrong with them and always protect yourself no matter what you are doing. So if the patient did not tell the doctor then the dr. should always protect themselves whenever they are coming into contact with blood.
Dr. M definitely needs to disclose this information to a patient before surgery. He should not need to stop his practice altogether though. The patient also has a right to tell the doctor that she is infected. The doctor is only trying to help the patient, he should be informed of any risk to him. The risks in surgery are not only to the patient. Anyone in the surgery room could come in contact with that blood.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the HIV infected surgeon, a difficult decsion has to be made. In defense of the surgeon, he has his right to privacy. On the side of the patient, the have their right to safety. The problem is though neither can have their cake and eat it too. I believe the best route to go would be for the surgeon to refrain from performing surgery. Not by any means in a discriminatory way but lets say a child care worker comes to work with pink eye. The pink eye wont spread unless the child care worker touches her eye but do you still want them there touching the kids with the risk, even though it's just pink eye? If I personally were the surgeon I would feel horrible if I infected a patient just because I wanted to keep performing surgery.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most posts. I think Dr. M should definitely inform his patients that he has HIV. I think he should be able to still practice, but he should tell his patients and take many extra precautions to not spread the virus. I think if the situation was reversed, Dorothea would be obligated to tell Dr. M. HIV is a serious condition and if a person has risk of being infected, they should know about it.
ReplyDeleteDr.M should inform his patient's of his HIV status and inform them of the risk level. Being honest is the best way to go because if he did infect a patient and they did not know he was HIV+ then he could lose his practice simply because people wouldn't want him as doctor. It would be best for all parties, if he inform his patients. I also feel that patients should tell their MD's if they are HIV+ because it's a huge risk for anyone caring for them. By not informing people who care for you as a patient your puting those people at risk.
ReplyDelete