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

Larry Gostin
American Society of Law and Medicine Boston, Mass

JAMA. 1990;264(4):452-453.

	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 the Editor.—

I have written about,¹ and given careful thought to, the issues posed by Gerbert et al² on the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected physician. Should physicians be required to disclose to their patients that they are infected with HIV? The law of informed consent requires disclosure of material risks to patients. However, the risk of transmission from physician to patient is so remote that the law ought not to require disclosure. A physician could not realistically continue to practice medicine when patients in the community know of his or her infection.

Should infected physicians be restricted in the practice of medicine? There are at least 14 court cases where health care professionals have been excluded from their practices by hospitals or physician partnerships.³ Patients cannot be assured a risk-free hospital environment. Provided the risks are remote, and rigorous precautions are used, infected physicians should be . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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