Doctor Censured For A.I.D.S. Test Note (Press, 29 April 1987)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Doctor Censured For A.I.D.S. Test Note (Press, 29 April 1987)
A doctor in Dunedin, referred to as Dr B, faced censure from the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee after a controversial incident involving a blood-alcohol test. In April 1986, while taking a blood sample from a man, Mr A, who he suspected was homosexual, Dr B annotated the test form with the note “Check for A.R.V. (A.I.D.S. virus)” to alert laboratory staff about potential infectious disease precautions. However, Mr A saw this annotation and became outraged, believing he was being tested for A.I.D.S. Following the encounter, he lodged a complaint with the Disciplinary Committee. The committee investigated and determined that while Dr B had not breached patient confidentiality, he had committed significant errors in judgement. They noted that Dr B assumed Mr A was part of a demographic that might be at risk for A.I.D.S. and that his decision to highlight this possibility on the form was inappropriate. The committee found Dr B’s note could easily lead others to infer that Mr A was being tested for A.I.D.S., which was misleading given that Dr B intended only to convey a precaution. Dr B's actions were deemed to cause unnecessary distress to Mr A. The committee pointed out that by leaving the form out in the open, attention was drawn to it in a way that was unprofessional. Although Dr B did not intend for the blood to be tested for A.I.D.S.—as the D.S.I.R. did not possess the facilities to conduct such tests—the committee concluded that Mr A had reasonable grounds for his concern based on the annotations made. Ultimately, the committee found that the combination of these serious shortcomings constituted “conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner.” As a result, Dr B was censured and instructed to pay $2054, which represented half the costs of the inquiry.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand