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 Web of Science (18)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letters  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • HIV/AIDS  • Medical Practice  • Health Policy  • Law and Medicine  • Public Health, Other  • Women's Health  • Pregnancy and Breast Feeding  • Screening  • Infectious Diseases  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Public Health and Civil Liberties in Conflict?

Lawrence O. Gostin, JD, LLD

JAMA. 2006;296:2023-2025.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

On September 22, 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a sweeping revision of its guidelines for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening in health care settings¹ that reversed a decade-old approach to AIDS policy. Previous guidelines recommended HIV testing only for persons at high risk or in health care settings with high HIV prevalence,² which reflected a civil liberties approach that constrained testing with costly, cumbersome procedures for pretest counseling and written informed consent. Health care professionals often did not perform HIV screening due to financial or administrative burdens or because conducting risk assessments or discovering HIV prevalence in their facilities was impractical.

The new guidelines, which apply to all health care institutions in the public and private sectors (eg, emergency departments, inpatient services, public health and community clinics, primary care, and correctional health care), represent a radical departure. The CDC now . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Social and Historical Context: HIV Testing From the 1980s to Today

Author Affiliations: Center for Law and the Public's Health, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; and Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED LETTERS

HIV Screening and False-Positive Results
Debra Guinn
JAMA. 2007;297(9):947.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

HIV Screening and False-Positive Results
Michael S. Zdeb
JAMA. 2007;297(9):947-948.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

HIV Screening and False-Positive Results—Reply
Lawrence O. Gostin
JAMA. 2007;297(9):948.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Implementation of and Barriers to Routine HIV Screening for Adolescents
Minniear et al.
Pediatrics 2009;124:1076-1084.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

HIV seropositive status disclosure to prospective sex partners and criminal laws that require it: perspectives of persons living with HIV
Galletly and Dickson-Gomez
Int J STD AIDS 2009;20:613-618.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Male Circumcision as an HIV Prevention Strategy in Sub-Saharan Africa: Sociolegal Barriers
Gostin and Hankins
JAMA 2008;300:2539-2541.
FULL TEXT  

Governing Masses: Routine HIV Testing as a Counteroffensive in the War Against HIV-AIDS
Gagnon and Holmes
Policy Politics Nursing Practice 2008;9:264-273.
ABSTRACT  

Opt-Out Testing for Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the United States: Progress and Challenges
Bartlett et al.
JAMA 2008;300:945-951.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Predictive testing and population screening
Slowther
Clin Ethics 2008;3:11-13.
FULL TEXT  

Routine HIV Testing in Dental Practice: Can We Cross the Rubicon?
Vernillo and Caplan
J Dent Educ 2007;71:1534-1539.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

HIV Screening and False-Positive Results
Guinn
JAMA 2007;297:947-947.
FULL TEXT  

HIV Screening and False-Positive Results
Zdeb
JAMA 2007;297:947-948.
FULL TEXT  

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