Codes of confidentiality play an essential role in the intimate discourses in many learned professions. Codes with\nvarious prescriptions exist. The Hippocratic Oath for example, prescribes rewards to the secret keeper, for keeping\nsecret what ought to be kept secret, and punishments for failing. In public health practice, partner notification,\narguably is one endeavor that tests the durability of this secret keeping doctrine of the health professional. We\npresent an interest-analysis of partner notification in the context of HIV service rendition. Using principles-based\nanalysis, the interests of the individual, the state/public health, and the bioethicist�s are discussed. The public health\ninterests in partner notification, which are usually backed by state statutes and evidence, are premised on the\ntheory that partners are entitled to knowledge. This theory posits that knowledge empowers individuals to avoid\ncontinuing risks; knowledge of infection allows for early treatment; and that knowledgeable partners can adapt their\nbehavior to prevent further transmission of infection to others. However, persons infected with HIV often have\ncounter interests. For instance, an infected person may desire to maintain the privacy of their health status from\nunnecessary disclosure because of the negative impacts of disclosure, or because notification without a matching\naccess to HIV prevention and treatment services is detrimental. The interest of the bioethicist in this matter is to\nfacilitate a resolution of these conflicted interests. Our analysis concludes that governmental interests are not\nabsolute in comparison with the interests of the individual. We reiterate that any effort to morally balance the\nbenefits of partner notification with its burdens ought to first recognize the multivalent nature of the interests at play.
Loading....