Mr. Peter Sfikas’ March JADA article, "HIV and Discrimination," is interesting on many levels. First, it illustrates the lack of commonality with the courts and juries. Second, it reveals that terms like "direct threat" and "significant risk" are undefinable even though courts have tried. Third, that scientific information is never an obstacle to poor decisions. And fourth, that patients are presumed to have more rights than medical/dental practitioners.
While this situation is sad and regrettable, what’s more disturbing is the ADA’s position coming down on the side of limiting its members’ decision-making ability. Listen to some of the absurd rulings emanating from courts, rulings supported by our organization.
To quote Mr. Sfikas’ article, "courts have held that because there is no ‘direct threat,’ providers have a legal duty to treat infected patients" and "courts perceived virtually no HIV-transmission risk" in routine dental care. Evidently scaling and root planing are not routine since the court ruled against Waddell. How inept does this make us look!
All of this reinforces my belief that clinical judgments need to be made at the source, not in Washington or the courts.
