100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: She Hid Her HIV Status From Her Hubby For 5Years | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
dcastelmissy
on
Wed 04/22/15 04:42 AM
|
|
A colleague's brother is a doctor with like two years experience in one of the general hospitals.He helped deliver a woman who already has two children.During the post delivery treatment,the curious husband asked why his wife required such.The doctor told the hubby that the woman needed all the treatment since she is HIV positive.The husband was shocked as he didint know her status.In fact,she has been positive before they got married but she decieved the husband with fake medical report which stated she was negative.The man left and never returned.The doctor defended his actions as he claimed her file clearly stated she has HIV before marriage which is over 5 yrs and has been on drugs so he thought the hubby knew her status. The question is; Was it ethical to have disclosed the woman's status to her husband and if not,What are the likely consequences of his action? Uh, it is difficult to answer the second question without knowing the pertinent laws in the nation where the doctor lives. It is possible that the doctor assumed that the husband already knew about his wife's HIV. True, we don't know the law there. But assuming is STILL wrong. Myself- while I was married. I had 2 different doctors call my husband in from the waiting room, while do the "Doctor patient post examination / testing consultation" Without ASKING me. I was livid both times, told the doctor off , had my husband leave the room. And this was for my heart. But it was MY decision. Not the doctors. Not my husbands My mothers Or any one else. It was a breech of confidentiality Your situation was different. You were not dealing with a disease that could affect the health and welfare of others. Clearly this situation is a matter of spreading a known communicable disease! In the U.S. This was a quarantineable disease and would have been governed by the Center for Disease Control, in order to protect the general populous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can see both sides of this. It sure is a difficult situation to come down firmly for any of the players.
* Patient confidentiality has never been considered unlimited. Obvious example: all gunshot wounds MUST be reported to the police. Also, I know that there have been many times when doctors have been required to report the finding of certain transmittable diseases to legal and health authorities as well. * I think that HOW the doctor became aware that the woman was HIV positive would be important. If he found out from her verbally, he might be obligated to help her keep that secret. However, if he found out from a blood test, then he might be obligated to tell her family members, so that they know that they are in danger. * I've dealt with a lot of doctors, and I know how many of them can divorce themselves from the intense emotional concerns of their patients, and view them as mechanisms, in order to both maximize their productivity as doctors, and to protect their own emotions from being pummeled. Forgetting who might be upset about information and why, would be a natural side effect. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SassyEuro
on
Wed 04/22/15 04:55 AM
|
|
A colleague's brother is a doctor with like two years experience in one of the general hospitals.He helped deliver a woman who already has two children.During the post delivery treatment,the curious husband asked why his wife required such.The doctor told the hubby that the woman needed all the treatment since she is HIV positive.The husband was shocked as he didint know her status.In fact,she has been positive before they got married but she decieved the husband with fake medical report which stated she was negative.The man left and never returned.The doctor defended his actions as he claimed her file clearly stated she has HIV before marriage which is over 5 yrs and has been on drugs so he thought the hubby knew her status. The question is; Was it ethical to have disclosed the woman's status to her husband and if not,What are the likely consequences of his action? Uh, it is difficult to answer the second question without knowing the pertinent laws in the nation where the doctor lives. It is possible that the doctor assumed that the husband already knew about his wife's HIV. True, we don't know the law there. But assuming is STILL wrong. Myself- while I was married. I had 2 different doctors call my husband in from the waiting room, while do the "Doctor patient post examination / testing consultation" Without ASKING me. I was livid both times, told the doctor off , had my husband leave the room. And this was for my heart. But it was MY decision. Not the doctors. Not my husbands My mothers Or any one else. It was a breech of confidentiality Your situation was different. You were not dealing with a disease that could affect the health and welfare of others. Clearly this situation is a matter of spreading a known communicable disease! In the U.S. This was a quarantineable disease and would have been governed by the Center for Disease Control, in order to protect the general populous. True, my case was different. Luckily there was nothing wrong with my heart. Which is partially my point. The doctor ASSUMED or wanted my (then) husband to know, even BEFORE I did. It was NOT his choice. This woman in Africa had a FORM of the disease, yet was married for 5 yrs & successfully gave birth. She may of had the form that was NOT contagious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A colleague's brother is a doctor with like two years experience in one of the general hospitals.He helped deliver a woman who already has two children.During the post delivery treatment,the curious husband asked why his wife required such.The doctor told the hubby that the woman needed all the treatment since she is HIV positive.The husband was shocked as he didint know her status.In fact,she has been positive before they got married but she decieved the husband with fake medical report which stated she was negative.The man left and never returned.The doctor defended his actions as he claimed her file clearly stated she has HIV before marriage which is over 5 yrs and has been on drugs so he thought the hubby knew her status. The question is; Was it ethical to have disclosed the woman's status to her husband and if not,What are the likely consequences of his action? Uh, it is difficult to answer the second question without knowing the pertinent laws in the nation where the doctor lives. It is possible that the doctor assumed that the husband already knew about his wife's HIV. True, we don't know the law there. But assuming is STILL wrong. Myself- while I was married. I had 2 different doctors call my husband in from the waiting room, while do the "Doctor patient post examination / testing consultation" Without ASKING me. I was livid both times, told the doctor off , had my husband leave the room. And this was for my heart. But it was MY decision. Not the doctors. Not my husbands My mothers Or any one else. It was a breech of confidentiality Your situation was different. You were not dealing with a disease that could affect the health and welfare of others. Clearly this situation is a matter of spreading a known communicable disease! In the U.S. This was a quarantineable disease and would have been governed by the Center for Disease Control, in order to protect the general populous. True, my case was different. Luckily there was nothing wrong with my heart. Which is partially my point. The doctor ASSUMED or wanted my (then) husband to know, even BEFORE I did. It was NOT his choice. This woman in Africa had a FORM of the disease, yet was married for 5 yrs & successfully gave birth. She may of had the form that was NOT contagious. That could be the case, but all I know is that if I were going to marry a man I would want full disclosure of any disease I would possibly come in contact with. Whether or not it was contagious is what I consider a separate issue. The fact of the matter is that if she did not fully disclose her illness before marriage, it was basically because she did not find it necessary to be honest from the start. JMHO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A colleague's brother is a doctor with like two years experience in one of the general hospitals.He helped deliver a woman who already has two children.During the post delivery treatment,the curious husband asked why his wife required such.The doctor told the hubby that the woman needed all the treatment since she is HIV positive.The husband was shocked as he didint know her status.In fact,she has been positive before they got married but she decieved the husband with fake medical report which stated she was negative.The man left and never returned.The doctor defended his actions as he claimed her file clearly stated she has HIV before marriage which is over 5 yrs and has been on drugs so he thought the hubby knew her status. The question is; Was it ethical to have disclosed the woman's status to her husband and if not,What are the likely consequences of his action? Uh, it is difficult to answer the second question without knowing the pertinent laws in the nation where the doctor lives. It is possible that the doctor assumed that the husband already knew about his wife's HIV. True, we don't know the law there. But assuming is STILL wrong. Myself- while I was married. I had 2 different doctors call my husband in from the waiting room, while do the "Doctor patient post examination / testing consultation" Without ASKING me. I was livid both times, told the doctor off , had my husband leave the room. And this was for my heart. But it was MY decision. Not the doctors. Not my husbands My mothers Or any one else. It was a breech of confidentiality Your situation was different. You were not dealing with a disease that could affect the health and welfare of others. Clearly this situation is a matter of spreading a known communicable disease! In the U.S. This was a quarantineable disease and would have been governed by the Center for Disease Control, in order to protect the general populous. True, my case was different. Luckily there was nothing wrong with my heart. Which is partially my point. The doctor ASSUMED or wanted my (then) husband to know, even BEFORE I did. It was NOT his choice. This woman in Africa had a FORM of the disease, yet was married for 5 yrs & successfully gave birth. She may of had the form that was NOT contagious. That could be the case, but all I know is that if I were going to marry a man I would want full disclosure of any disease I would possibly come in contact with. Whether or not it was contagious is what I consider a separate issue. The fact of the matter is that if she did not fully disclose her illness before marriage, it was basically because she did not find it necessary to be honest from the start. JMHO I agree.I would want full disclosure also. Here is the USA marriages can be dissolved for not disclosing information that can effect the decision to marry or not. Because marriage is a contract. If one was previously married and did not let the part know in advance. If there are children involved and the partner did not know. Myself, I broke an engagement because he was not only previously married, but had a illegitimate daughter, by another woman in another state. It took him 18 months to tell me...  . See ya.. have s nice life. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that the father has a right to know about anything that could affect his baby's health. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
yellowrose10
on
Wed 04/22/15 07:20 AM
|
|
The doctor is wrong. The doctor works for his patient.And there is the " doctor patient confidentiality" MAJOR law suit exactly.  Here medical providers can't release information. It's patient confidentiality whether the patient is man or women. That is the law right or wrong. It is the patients duty to inform others. If doctors gave out info then many wouldn't want treatment. Not sure how this got turned into a woman thing. It goes for men and women I agree the husband should know to take precautions but the doctor could lose his/her license and be sued A choice the medical provider needs to decide |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 SOUNDS LIKE A DAMN LIE TO ME !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SOUNDS LIKE A DAMN LIE TO ME !! Yeah. The Health Dept. in the US is required by law to contact named individuals that the INFECTED STD persons come into sexual contact with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how about patient confidentiality? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tealbreeze
on
Wed 04/22/15 07:29 AM
|
|
how about patient confidentiality? Health Dept. overrides confidentiality. Medical providers are required to report it to Health Dept. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aids isn't treated the same in every country so the success & failure rate for 'LIFE' can't be measured the same way that we have here in the United States. We have an excellent success rate for keeping people alive but the meds are very expensive; but that comes with early diagnoses and continued treatment - this isn't the 'NORM' for all foreign countries...there are still places where raping a virgin is 'supposed to cure STD's' and that hasn't been stopped either!
The scenario has many facets to the problem and to judge this story by our American standards seems unjust --- to me! We don't know the entire background - the country - the legalities - what the hospital rules are and there are often times where a 'FALSE POSITIVE' test results have been given and a humans life turned upside down for that error! Who are we to judge this sad story? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
yellowrose10
on
Wed 04/22/15 07:33 AM
|
|
how about patient confidentiality? Health Dept. overrides confidentiality. Medical providers are required to report it to Health Dept. I was about to ask that. The Health Dept is government and the doctors don't directly give that info out (except the to the Health dept) But I could be wrong. That happens on occasion lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
yellowrose10
on
Wed 04/22/15 07:38 AM
|
|
Again I could be wrong...but I believe the Dept of Health only tells partners to get tested because they came in contact with an STD but doesn't give the patient's name
Not that it matters since the OP isn't in the US but still would be interesting to know |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The doctor is wrong. The doctor works for his patient.And there is the " doctor patient confidentiality" MAJOR law suit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
2OLD2MESSAROUND
on
Wed 04/22/15 08:23 AM
|
|
uche9aa stated >>> how about patient confidentiality? Health Dept. overrides confidentiality. Medical providers are required to report it to Health Dept. I was about to ask that. The Health Dept is government and the doctors don't directly give that info out (except the to the Health dept) But I could be wrong. That happens on occasion lol Well, this got me to wondering also; and a recent court case about a high school student contracting HIV from her boyfriend and she was able to keep the test from her parents...anyway it was a lengthy drawn out trial. But the CDC is Federal Reg's and there are lots of places in America where the 'County' doesn't have the "FUNDS" to manage or keep a full time Health Department and those records & staff are just not available! Even though the CDC mandates that all 50 states are required to report positive test results {see link} the files will get misplaced and the buck stops when there isn't a 'County Hlth Department' staffed to handle that reporting! Also the link gave an interesting point about only 31 states required a positive test for certain STD's for teenagers to be reported back to their parents; found that really shocking and that was why there was a court case! Seems that young man was spreading his HIV around to many of his female classmates - court case was back in the late 90's and if I'm ever able to find it again I'll bring it in here! But parents of teenagers should be aware of that - ASAP! http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/partners/FAQ-public.html Q. What strategies for notifying partners are included in the recommendations? A. The new partner services recommendations describe five strategies for notifying partners that they have been exposed to HIV or another STD. These strategies are similar with respect to what the partner is told; the main difference between them is who is doing the telling. Notification can be done by any of the following: A public health professional who has been specifically trained to locate and notify partners of their possible exposure to an STD, including HIV. The infected person. The infected person and the health department specialist together. A non-health department specialist such as a private physician. A combination strategy: The public health professional completes the notification when the infected person fails to contact their partner within an agreed upon amount of time. Q. Can children or teenagers access partner services without their parents’ knowledge or consent? A. All 50 states and the District of Columbia allow minors to consent to STD services without parental consent or knowledge, although some states specify that the minor must be of a certain age (usually 12 or 14 years) to do so. In addition, 31 states explicitly mention that HIV testing and counseling services are among STD services to which a minor can consent. As partner services are an STD service, minors would be able to access them without parental consent or knowledge, although the specific age at which they may do so varies across states and in some cases, infections. Because laws related to parental consent may vary in detail from one area to another, partner services programs should collaborate with legal counsel to develop policies and protocols that are consistent with all applicable laws and regulations. Program managers and partner services staff should remain up-to-date on state and local laws and regulations related to parental consent, diagnosis and treatment of STDs, and HIV counseling and testing and should seek legal counsel if there is any doubt regarding a specific case. Partner services programs may also be subject to state and local requirements related to reporting of suspected sexual activity involving an adult and a minor, child abuse, and sexual crimes. Partner services programs should collaborate with legal counsel to develop policies and protocols related to these issues. Persons providing services to youth should be alert to these issues and should notify the appropriate authorities (e.g., child protective services agency) in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. Guess I assumed the parents of minors are notified
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
debbie1980
on
Wed 04/22/15 10:22 AM
|
|
here in the uk when a patient is diagnosed with a sti they are giving a slip(S) where a code is stated and to pass on to previous partners to contact the department, problem there was a lot of patients had one night stands and didn't have contact information, or some wouldn't pass them on.
this worked differently with hiv/aids. the specialist nurse would deal with that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What just cause is there for a married women to keep her husband from knowing that she is HIV positive?
I know not of any. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
debbie1980 stated >>> here in the uk when a patient is diagnosed with a sti they are giving a slip(S) where a code is stated and to pass on to previous partners to contact the department, problem there was a lot of patients had one night stands and didn't have contact information, or some wouldn't pass them on. this worked differently with hiv/aids. the specialist nurse would deal with that. Something that my generation {baby boomers} are finding out that they were exposed to several types of STD's in their youth that lay dormant until their elderly years and then certain meds or illnesses will cause those STD's to 'POP OUT' and surprise the holy hell out of them!!! 20+ years isn't too long a time for some STD's to lay dormant and one autoimmune disease can throw that into a out break and then those elderly are going into their Dr's office trying to find out WTH happened since they've not been any where/or with any different sexual partner! Those years of 'Free Love - Rock & Roll' are coming back to haunt many residents in our LTC {nursing homes}...rather embarrassing at that age to be having that 'safe sex' conversation! |
|
|
|
|
