Unconsented HIV testing in cases of occupational exposure: Ethics, law, and policy

Ethan Cowan, Ruth MacKlin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) has substantially reduced the risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) after an occupational exposure; nevertheless, exposure to HIV remains a concern for emergency department providers. According to published guidelines, PEP should be taken only when source patients are HIV-positive or have risk factors for HIV. Initiating PEP when source patients are uninfected puts exposed persons at risk from taking toxic drugs with no compensating benefit. Forgoing PEP if the source is infected results in increased risk of acquiring HIV. What should be done if source patients refuse HIV testing? Is it justifiable to test the blood of these patients over their autonomous objection? The authors review current law and policy and perform an ethical analysis to determine if laws permitting unconsented testing in cases of occupational exposure can be ethically justified.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1181-1187
Number of pages7
JournalAcademic Emergency Medicine
Volume19
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2012

Fingerprint

Occupational Exposure
Ethics
HIV
Ethical Analysis
Poisons
Hematologic Tests
Risk-Taking
Hospital Emergency Service
Guidelines
Pharmaceutical Preparations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Unconsented HIV testing in cases of occupational exposure : Ethics, law, and policy. / Cowan, Ethan; MacKlin, Ruth.

In: Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 19, No. 10, 10.2012, p. 1181-1187.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cowan, Ethan ; MacKlin, Ruth. / Unconsented HIV testing in cases of occupational exposure : Ethics, law, and policy. In: Academic Emergency Medicine. 2012 ; Vol. 19, No. 10. pp. 1181-1187.
@article{199e0022f71e4924a5690b3996fab66d,
title = "Unconsented HIV testing in cases of occupational exposure: Ethics, law, and policy",
abstract = "Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) has substantially reduced the risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) after an occupational exposure; nevertheless, exposure to HIV remains a concern for emergency department providers. According to published guidelines, PEP should be taken only when source patients are HIV-positive or have risk factors for HIV. Initiating PEP when source patients are uninfected puts exposed persons at risk from taking toxic drugs with no compensating benefit. Forgoing PEP if the source is infected results in increased risk of acquiring HIV. What should be done if source patients refuse HIV testing? Is it justifiable to test the blood of these patients over their autonomous objection? The authors review current law and policy and perform an ethical analysis to determine if laws permitting unconsented testing in cases of occupational exposure can be ethically justified.",
author = "Ethan Cowan and Ruth MacKlin",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1111/j.1553-2712.2012.01453.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "1181--1187",
journal = "Academic Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1069-6563",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Unconsented HIV testing in cases of occupational exposure

T2 - Ethics, law, and policy

AU - Cowan, Ethan

AU - MacKlin, Ruth

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) has substantially reduced the risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) after an occupational exposure; nevertheless, exposure to HIV remains a concern for emergency department providers. According to published guidelines, PEP should be taken only when source patients are HIV-positive or have risk factors for HIV. Initiating PEP when source patients are uninfected puts exposed persons at risk from taking toxic drugs with no compensating benefit. Forgoing PEP if the source is infected results in increased risk of acquiring HIV. What should be done if source patients refuse HIV testing? Is it justifiable to test the blood of these patients over their autonomous objection? The authors review current law and policy and perform an ethical analysis to determine if laws permitting unconsented testing in cases of occupational exposure can be ethically justified.

AB - Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) has substantially reduced the risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) after an occupational exposure; nevertheless, exposure to HIV remains a concern for emergency department providers. According to published guidelines, PEP should be taken only when source patients are HIV-positive or have risk factors for HIV. Initiating PEP when source patients are uninfected puts exposed persons at risk from taking toxic drugs with no compensating benefit. Forgoing PEP if the source is infected results in increased risk of acquiring HIV. What should be done if source patients refuse HIV testing? Is it justifiable to test the blood of these patients over their autonomous objection? The authors review current law and policy and perform an ethical analysis to determine if laws permitting unconsented testing in cases of occupational exposure can be ethically justified.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867579663&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867579663&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2012.01453.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2012.01453.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 22994417

AN - SCOPUS:84867579663

VL - 19

SP - 1181

EP - 1187

JO - Academic Emergency Medicine

JF - Academic Emergency Medicine

SN - 1069-6563

IS - 10

ER -