Year: 2009
Type: article
Abstract: In 2006 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended routine HIV screening in health care settings of all patients aged 13 to 64 years, irrespective of lifestyle or perceived risk behaviors [1].As part of those recommendations, the CDC stated that separate signed informed consent and prevention counseling should not be required for HIV-screening programs in health care settings.Depending on the policy of the individual setting, patients would be provided with verbal or written information about HIV testing, told that testing was recommended as part of routine care, and afforded the opportunity to decline-"opt-out."Those recommendations represented a shift from previous policies that had encouraged testing only for persons at high risk for HIV infection or in health care settings with high prevalence of HIV.Previous testing policies usually required separate written consent and preand post-test prevention counseling [2].Aspects of the CDC's 2006 recommendations have engendered considerable controversy, especially as they relate to the ethical principle of respect for autonomy.Several authors have discussed the ethics of universal HIV screening based on different paradigms, highlighting and weighing different benefits and risks [3][4][5][6][7][8].In this article, w e present the clinical and public health rationale for the 2006 recommendations and discuss several ethical considerations as they relate to the principles of beneficence, respect for autonomy, and justice, focusing especially on physicians' dual responsibility to patients and the public.
Source: The AMA Journal of Ethic
Authors: Bernard M. Branson, Salaam Semaan
Language: English
Subfield: Infectious Diseases
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W197272435