Résumé :
|
1 : The ethical controversy surrounding the Centre for Disease Control and American Medical Association guidelines for restricting the practice of HIV-infected health professionals appears to hinge on wether we give priority to the rights of infected workers or patients. We cannot simply dismiss the concerns of patients as irrational, despite the low risks of transmission. Nor can we avoid the dispute about rights by claiming with the AMA that professionals have obligation to refrain from imposing "identifiable risks", however low on patients. Nevertheless, allowing the full exercise of patients rights, either by giving patients the opportunity to know the risks they face and to switch the providers, or by removing infected providers, would make each of us worse off. This gives us adequate reason to reject these guidelines and to emphasize other infection contol measures. (R.A.) 2 : An analysis of the restrictive proposals provoked by the case of Kimberly Bergalis and four other patients apparently infected with HIV during the course of dental treatment reveals that they result from inability to evaluate appropriately the infenitesimal risk of HIV transmission from practitionner to patient...This analysis demonstrates that the proposed restrictive policies are not justified because they di nothing to prevent the spread of HIV, and they cause unnecessary and substancial harm to health care practitioners. (R.A.)
|