You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 281 No. 8, February 24, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Health Law and Ethics
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (16)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •HIV/AIDS
 •Law and Medicine
 •Rehabilitation Medicine
 •Immunologic Disorders
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Disability Discrimination in America

HIV/AIDS and Other Health Conditions

Lawrence O. Gostin, JD; Chai Feldblum, JD; David W. Webber, JD

JAMA. 1999;281:745-752.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) was widely hailed at the time of its enactment in 1990 as providing broad protection against disability discrimination, including discrimination against individuals infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In the years since its enactment, however, courts frequently interpreted the ADA as providing far less protection than was initially anticipated. The Supreme Court's first case involving HIV and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, Bragdon v Abbott, addressed this trend by ruling that a woman with asymptomatic HIV infection is protected from discrimination in accessing dental services. In doing so, the Court endorsed an interpretation of the ADA that is broadly protective for individuals with disabilities. The Court also ruled that health care professionals may legally refuse to treat a patient because of concern that the patient poses a direct threat to safety only if there is an objective, scientific basis for concluding that the threat to safety is significant. In addition to the ADA, state laws frequently prohibit disability discrimination and apply to some employers and others not regulated by federal law. A state-by-state survey of those laws demonstrates that, consistent with Bragdon v Abbott, individuals with asymptomatic HIV have widespread protection on the state level.


Author Affiliations: Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC (Mr Gostin and Ms Feldblum). Mr Webber is in private practice in Philadelphia, Pa.



THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Risking Lives: AIDS, Security and Three Concepts of Risk
Elbe
Security Dialogue 2008;39:177-198.
ABSTRACT  

Recent Developments in Health Law
Gerber and Schalman-Bergen
J Law Med Ethics 2007;35:220-227.
 

Legal Barriers to Implementing Recommendations for Universal, Routine Prenatal HIV Testing
Wolf et al.
J Law Med Ethics 2004;32:137-147.
 

The Role of State Law in Protecting Human Subjects of Public Health Research and Practice
Burris et al.
J Law Med Ethics 2003;31:654-662.
 

A Proposed National Policy on Health Care Workers Living With HIV/AIDS and Other Blood-Borne Pathogens
Gostin
JAMA 2000;284:1965-1970.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Protection Under the Americans With Disabilities Act
Wendel et al.
JAMA 1999;282:1131-1132.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1999 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.