Premium
Consent, compulsion and confidentiality in relation to testing for HIV infection: the views of WA doctors
Author(s) -
Grove David I.,
Mulligan Jon B.
Publication year - 1990
Publication title -
medical journal of australia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.904
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1326-5377
pISSN - 0025-729X
DOI - 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1990.tb125141.x
Subject(s) - confidentiality , specialty , medicine , family medicine , informed consent , human immunodeficiency virus (hiv) , alternative medicine , law , pathology , political science
A survey was undertaken of all of the consultant staff members of Perth's major teaching hospitals together with all the fellows of The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners in Western Australia in order to define their views on the issues of informed consent, compulsion in relation to surgery, and confidentiality in a particular circumstance, when testing for infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Of the 701 individuals surveyed, 548 (78.2%) responded. Of these, 74.3% considered that it was not always necessary to gain informed consent, 22.0% believed that it was always necessary to do so, while 2.3% were undecided. General practitioners (38.4%) were more likely to think it necessary to obtain consent than were hospital consultants (19.0%), but otherwise the field of specialty had little effect on opinion. Of the respondents, 39.0% believed that testing before elective surgery is mandatory for all patients, while 53.0% considered that it should be compulsory in high‐risk groups. Similar views were held about compulsory HIV antibody testing after emergency surgery. Similar responses were obtained from all specialty groups. When asked about whether they would tell a sexual partner of a patient's HIV status when the patient refused, 10.5% of doctors stated they would never advise the partner, 24.7% of doctors would on some occasions, 41.0% of doctors would tell a partner, and 23.8% always were undecided. Many individuals commented that they failed to see why HIV infection was being treated differently from other serious diseases. We have found that the majority opinion of the most senior members of the medical profession is that specific, informed consent should not always be required, that there is great support for compulsory testing, and that confidentiality may be broken under certain circumstances. These views must be recognized by administrators and legislators when framing measures to control this infection.