This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Richard M. Ratzan, MD; Henry Schneiderman, MD

JAMA. 1988;260(23):3466-3469.

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

TO DATE, studies of physicians show only a minute occupational risk of infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).¹ Even after a needlestick-type injury, seroconversion is a varity.² Nonetheless, an increasing number of physicians have publicly refused to give care to patients infected with HIV (New York Times, March 13, 1987, p A21; July 10, 1987, p D18),³ despite the American Medical Association declaration that physicians are ethically bound to care for people with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (New York Times, Nov 13, 1987, p A14). We have encountered several instances wherein pathologists refused to perform necropsies on AIDS patients for reasons that proved illogical, prejudicial, or arbitrary. Parallel instances have occurred elsewhere, including in a self-designated AIDS treatment center in New York City.⁴ There are appropriate and ethical reasons to refuse an autopsy, including its having an origin outside one's own institution and, thus, less . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Section of Medical Arts and Letters, Departments of Medicine (Drs Ratzan and Schneiderman) and Pathology (Dr Schneiderman), University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Conn.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT 06032 (Dr Ratzan).

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