20 replies to this topic

[Drakonid]

I might be wrong, but can't a doctor do whatever they see fit(within reasonable boundaries) with fluids once they've been extracted?

Edited by bluelion, 08 October 2012 - 10:19 AM.

[tri]

I might be wrong, but can't a doctor do whatever they see fit(within reasonable boundaries) with fluids once they've been extracted?

Well I believe they cannot do anything. They can choose to do something which will benefit you if you are not capable of giving consent example if you were in a coma and had no family. But if you had family and you were not able to then the family would choose. Example if you are on life support it is your families choice to take you off or if you had serious injuries and was in a coma and need surgery but had not family around and could not find any then it would be the doctors choice. I believe it is the same for like blood tests like if I need one the doctor would ask would you like one. According to her she did not agree to be tested for HIV but to be tested for something different. I understand she is mad but do I think she will win the battle in court probably not but the doctor may have his licence taken or some other punishment.

Edited by Tristen, 08 October 2012 - 10:31 AM.

[Waser Lave]

It seems like the doctor both went against her wishes and also against the law by not offering the counselling despite it being required legally. Whatever the outcome of the court case it seems clear that the doctor needs at least a reminder of the rules and perhaps some additional training.

[Nymh]

There are a few things about this article that bother me

The lawsuit also alleged that other staff members knew about the results — despite the law’s requirement of confidentiality — and one of them even told her she should get retested.

Without context, this is useless. If the nurse taking care of her didn't know she had HIV, I would be worried. It's going to say in her chart that she has it, anyone with access to her chart will know. HIPAA protects the disclosure to appropriate staff within the covered entity. That doesn't mean the janitor should know you have HIV, but nurses and receptionists are going to know.

That particular clinic, which provided only dietary treatments, was not where she wanted to learn such life-altering information, he added.

Also irrelevant.

“When he told me I was positive and threw the papers at me, I just went numb,” the woman recalled. “I was no good.”

How sensational to think that doctors bark diagnoses at their patients and throw things at them.

“(She) clearly stated that she did not want an HIV test,” according to the suit filed in Brooklyn Supreme Court last month.

Usually, if a doctor recommends a certain treatment or test, and the patient refuses, then they document it in the patient's chart. She may have even had to sign a release form stating she didn't give consent for the test, if she really did "clearly say no."

What more likely happened was the doctor said, "Hey, your white count is a little low. Mind if we run some tests to see if there's anything serious going on? It's probably nothing but it never hurts to be thorough." And she probably said, "Sure, that's fine, whatever you think is best," and thought nothing of it.

[Drakonid]

Well I believe they cannot do anything. They can choose to do something which will benefit you if you are not capable of giving consent example if you were in a coma and had no family. But if you had family and you were not able to then the family would choose. Example if you are on life support it is your families choice to take you off or if you had serious injuries and was in a coma and need surgery but had not family around and could not find any then it would be the doctors choice. I believe it is the same for like blood tests like if I need one the doctor would ask would you like one. According to her she did not agree to be tested for HIV but to be tested for something different. I understand she is mad but do I think she will win the battle in court probably not but the doctor may have his licence taken or some other punishment.

I might be wrong, but can't a doctor do whatever they see fit(within reasonable boundaries) with fluids once they've been extracted?

[Mishelle]

This is stupid. If she might have HIV its important to test her and let her know so she wont go spreading it to other people. It seems to me she's just looking for easy money.

[tri]

Well I still think that she did not want it done and that takes the rights away in my view. And if he did and she said she did not want it and now filing a lawsuit she clearly did not want it but he did it anyway. Maybe the doctor should have asked instead of doing it anyway which would have been better.

[NapisaurusRex]

I think it would also depend on who's paying for it. If I specifically said I didn't want something done, then got results for it, I probably wouldn't be horribly upset. If I got a bill for it though, I'd be furious.

[tri]

Obviously this should be moved to the debate thread. xD Lol

I think, since it involves HIV and she has the chance of potentially unknowingly infecting others, HIV testing should be standard practice rather people want it or not.
Making a, what some may seem as racist, assumption that she is black (as it was a clinic in Harlem) blacks and homosexual men have the highest risk for HIV, thus I think we should be tested for it rather we like it or not due to the enormous health risk not testing someone can cause, I don't think she should have a leg to stand on in this case.

She's basically arguing that the doctor invaded her privacy and embarrassed her for the sake of her (and her current/future partner's) health.
I'd rather have my privacy invaded and be embarrassed than continue to spread HIV to people I love unknowingly.

I agree with you that is should be a standard practice with blood test everywhere. I would want to know too but everyone is different. Sad for the doctor it is not standard practice to test for HIV.

I think it would also depend on who's paying for it. If I specifically said I didn't want something done, then got results for it, I probably wouldn't be horribly upset. If I got a bill for it though, I'd be furious.

Same.

[Waser Lave]

She's basically arguing that the doctor invaded her privacy and embarrassed her for the sake of her (and her current/future partner's) health.

There's no better way of embarrassing yourself than a frivolous lawsuit. Barbra Streisand would be proud.

[NapisaurusRex]

I agree with you that is should be a standard practice with blood test everywhere. I would want to know too but everyone is different. Sad for the doctor it is not standard practice to test for HIV.

The clinic that I go to offers it free with the purchase of any other test. It isn't even a big deal, just a swab thingy around the gums. Dr doesn't even have to touch you.

[tri]

In Canada I think all of that is free. Though you still need to look at the point that she did not want it done.

[Mishelle]

At my campus and the campus I work at when you get tested they give you a starbucks giftcard so they pretty much pay you to get tested.

[MoshZombie]

She obviously has little intelligence if she is suing a guy who helps people, regardless of whether she was aware of what the testing entailed she should be thanking him for possibly saving the lives of everyone around her.

What if she has or is around a small child and gave it HIV how could she live with herself after that? Even knowing that she could potentially infect those she cares about should be enough to make her think how lucky she was that she didn't(that we know of). Besides HIV is pretty treatable these days and lots of people live with it, I doubt it's going to change her life much from what it is now besides taking meds and being more cautious. I think it's more the mental side of it that she finds so damaging because of the way HIV is thought of in society. She's just going through the coping stages of shock, anger, depression etc.

If she truly felt so strongly about not wanting to contract the virus she should have taken better preventative measures like safe sex and prior testing of course if she got it from her long term partner who got it by cheating on her or maybe she cheated on him then she should be looking at suing those involved don't shoot the messenger(Doctor) rofl. She's just after the money to make herself feel better and feeling like she's getting revenge on the Dr. who gave her such terrible news.

Sad thing is the law states that she is in the right because she didn't give permission for the test and she will probably win the case, I do not think this is fair at all because it's people like this that spread diseases carelessly and hurt other people. She must have thought that she had it to not want to get the test done and have her suspicions confirmed.

Edited by MoshZombie, 08 October 2012 - 10:12 PM.

[Deathscythe]

It seems strange to me that anyone with nothing to hide would specifically ask to not be tested for HIV. That suggests she knew somehow she had HIV.

Anyway, considering HIV can be transmitted via many ways and that doctors can put themselves in harm's way if they unwilling expose themselves to her fluids, it seems that the doctor was the doing the right thing. Note that right does not mean legal. To me, it seems that the law needs to be rewritten in this case.

[Nymh]

If she truly felt so strongly about not wanting to contract the virus she should have taken better preventative measures like safe sex and prior testing of course if she got it from her long term partner who got it by cheating on her or maybe she cheated on him then she should be looking at suing those involved don't shoot the messenger(Doctor) rofl.

Placing blame on the patient for their disease is kind of foolish. You have no idea how she contracted HIV and assuming that people only get it from unsafe sex or cheating partners is wrong. She (or her partner) could have had a botched blood transfusion or medical procedure (not as common now, but happened more frequently in the 70's and 80's), could have had an accidental needlestick, could have gotten it from sharing needles with someone for whatever reason, could have come into contact with someone's blood somehow (car accident, injury where she tried to help). She, just like any HIV patient, could have contracted the disease multiple different ways, and assuming that she is to blame is placing unnecessary shame on her.

Anyway, considering HIV can be transmitted via many ways and that doctors can put themselves in harm's way if they unwilling expose themselves to her fluids, it seems that the doctor was the doing the right thing.

Indeed it can, but this is a reason that doctors and nurses are supposed to practice universal precautions when coming in contact with any patient's bodily fluids. They don't just go touching people's blood and semen with their bare hands if they don't think the patient has any communicable diseases.

[Boggart]

My sister when through an entire ethical training session with me about this.

Professionaly, no the doctor shouldn't have done it. And ethically, he shouldn't have. But sometimes ethics aren't the best way to deal with certain situations when it comes to life and death. By ethics, if a patient endangers someone's life (e.g. they have AIDS after cheating with someone but won't tell their husband/wife), ethically, there's nothing you can do about that. If you go out of your way to tell the spouse.. well, that's your choice. But by the medical profession, you shouldn't do that and can lose your license.

The "best" doctors are those who have little to no attachment to their patients. How that is done, is beyond me.