Refusal to treat AIDS and HIV positive patients.

Abstract

Gillon, a physician and editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, refutes the justifications expressed by some physicians for their refusal to care for AIDS or HIV positive patients. He argues that an important element of being a health care professional is the assumption of a special and supererogatory obligation to benefit one's patients, even when this entails real risks. The author also rejects, as outside the norms of professional conduct, withholding treatment because of moral disapproval by the physician of patients' life styles. He cites the principles of professional conduct enunciated by Britain's General Medical Council, which hold that, "in pursuance of its primary duty to protect the public the Council may institute disciplinary proceedings when a doctor appears seriously to have disregarded or neglected his professional duties, for example by failing to visit or to provide or arrange treatment for a patient when necessary."This report discusses the ethical considerations of refusal to treat AIDS patients. Empirical evidence indicates that risk to doctors and other health care workers of occupational acquisition of AIDS virus infection is of very low probability. However the perception of risk on the part of the health care worker is an important factor which must be considered. An important component of being a health care professional is the obligation to benefit one's patients. The report considers the possibility that doctors may withdraw from their normal obligation to treat their patients if the patient's illness has resulted from some voluntary action of which the doctor disapproves, such as homosexuality or drug abuse.