| Author |
|
f8dagrate
Elite Member
Joined: Nov 26 2010
Location: inyomouf
Status: Offline
Points: 56482
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2013 at 2:46am |
PeacefulOne wrote:
I'm thinking about making a quiche . . . | what are you going to put in it?
|
 |
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
 |
Quiann00
VIP Member
Joined: Dec 14 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 13413
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2013 at 7:57am |
PeacefulOne wrote:
Thanks for that link. I see an exception tho:
53. May a medical provider discuss a patient's confidential HIV information with another medical provider for the purposes of continuity of care without getting a specific release from the patient? How about community based organizations?
Yes. Such medical provider to medical provider disclosure is standard practice and can be covered by a general consent to use and disclose health information for the purpose of treatment. Non-medical providerscaeley should get a specific signed release from their clients before divulging or discussing confidential HIV information with anyone.
Sooo, I will bet she already knew her status, from the surgery, was refered to a specialist, her white count was low, and he redid her test? If I was a lawyer, I would point out that it was for continuity of care, therefore did not require a separate release, and fell under general consent. . . but they will usually settle out of court.
|
This is what it sounds like in the original OP. She knew her status prior to seeing the second Doctor.
|
 |
Yardgirl
Platinum Member
Joined: Nov 04 2007
Location: Xaymaca
Status: Offline
Points: 40938
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2013 at 8:09am |
afrokock wrote:
mrshairdo wrote:
thank God i live in a country where doctors don't need permission to test you for hivthat shiit is done automatically with my yearly physical | the same country that recently passed a law (in the last quarter of last year) that says non-disclosure is not a crime even in the event of transmission?
y'all progressive as hell out there
|
Not entirely true.
On Oct. 5 [2012], the Supreme Court of Canada released its decisions in two cases dealing with the tricky issues of criminal liability for HIV nondisclosure. The court ruled that people living with HIV have a legal duty to tell their sexual partners about their HIV infection except in a narrow set of circumstances — where the risk that HIV would be transmitted approaches zero. These decisions are a step backward for HIV prevention efforts, unjust for people living with HIV, and do nothing to advance sexual assault jurisprudence. Unfortunately, some initial media reports of the decisions exhibited amnesia toward the state of the law on this issue, implying that people living with HIV could previously be found guilty for not always disclosing their HIV status to sexual partners, in every circumstance. Some coverage implied that these new decisions represented “get out of jail free” cards for people behaving irresponsibly, as if Canadians would no longer be able to protect themselves against infection. First, let’s be clear about the law. Prior to these decisions, people living with HIV were legally obligated to disclose only before sex that posed a “significant risk” of HIV transmission. That was the legal test articulated by the Supreme Court in 1998, recognizing HIV nondisclosure could be a fraud that would invalidate consent to sex. But the court put an important limit on the information that a person is legally obligated to share: the law could not reasonably transform otherwise consensual sex into assault every time a person did not have full and complete information about a sexual partner. Thus the “significant risk of serious bodily harm” test was a necessary limit on criminal liability. What the Supreme Court has now done is maintain the “significant risk” test but stripped “significant” of its meaning — by setting the bar at such an exceptionally low level of transmission risk. In these cases, the court only accepted both condom use and low viral load together as a defence.
|
 |
eanaj5
Elite Member
Joined: Jun 29 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 74726
|
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2013 at 8:20am |
Positive K wrote:
U can go into a DC Hospital to pick up somebody and end up getting a HIV test. smh they don't care bout your consent
|
Damn  Arent the rates there the highest in the country?
|
 |
india100
Platinum Member
Joined: Feb 19 2008
Location: in god's hand
Status: Offline
Points: 74659
|
Post Options
Thanks(2)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2013 at 8:21am |
|
More people need to actually read consent forms before you have any type of medical procedure . I always adivise my PT to read every word. I see so many people sign without reading a word . I think my insurance rates are Too high to protect myself as a LPN . The lady should sue the GBPS also . Prior to any major surgery you are test for everything possible and inform on most standard consent forms . If the surgical staff fail to inform her of the HIV Status , I would be shock . JMO .
|
 |
india100
Platinum Member
Joined: Feb 19 2008
Location: in god's hand
Status: Offline
Points: 74659
|
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2013 at 9:56am |
|
|
 |
afrokock
Elite Member
Joined: May 19 2008
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 352241
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2013 at 10:11am |
Yardgirl wrote:
afrokock wrote:
mrshairdo wrote:
thank God i live in a country where doctors don't need permission to test you for hivthat shiit is done automatically with my yearly physical | the same country that recently passed a law (in the last quarter of last year) that says non-disclosure is not a crime even in the event of transmission?
y'all progressive as hell out there
|
Not entirely true.
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 21px; padding: 0px; line-height: 21px; font-size: 15px; color: rgb52, 52, 52; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> On Oct. 5 [2012], the Supreme Court of Canada released its decisions in two cases dealing with the tricky issues of criminal liability for HIV nondisclosure. The court ruled that people living with HIV have a legal duty to tell their sexual partners about their HIV infection except in a narrow set of circumstances — where the risk that HIV would be transmitted approaches zero. These decisions are a step backward for HIV prevention efforts, unjust for people living with HIV, and do nothing to advance sexual assault jurisprudence.<p style="margin: 0px 0px 21px; padding: 0px; line-height: 21px; font-size: 15px; color: rgb52, 52, 52; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Unfortunately, some initial media reports of the decisions exhibited amnesia toward the state of the law on this issue, implying that people living with HIV could previously be found guilty for not always disclosing their HIV status to sexual partners, in every circumstance. Some coverage implied that these new decisions represented “get out of jail free” cards for people behaving irresponsibly, as if Canadians would no longer be able to protect themselves against infection.<p style="margin: 0px 0px 21px; padding: 0px; line-height: 21px; font-size: 15px; color: rgb52, 52, 52; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">First, let’s be clear about the law. Prior to these decisions, people living with HIV were legally obligated to disclose only before sex that posed a “significant risk” of HIV transmission. That was the legal test articulated by the Supreme Court in 1998, recognizing HIV nondisclosure could be a fraud that would invalidate consent to sex. But the court put an important limit on the information that a person is legally obligated to share: the law could not reasonably transform otherwise consensual sex into assault every time a person did not have full and complete information about a sexual partner. Thus the “significant risk of serious bodily harm” test was a necessary limit on criminal liability.<p style="margin: 0px 0px 21px; padding: 0px; line-height: 21px; font-size: 15px; color: rgb52, 52, 52; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> What the Supreme Court has now done is maintain the “significant risk” test but stripped “significant” of its meaning — by setting the bar at such an exceptionally low level of transmission risk. In these cases, the court only accepted both condom use and low viral load together as a defence. | thanks thats good news
|
 |
india100
Platinum Member
Joined: Feb 19 2008
Location: in god's hand
Status: Offline
Points: 74659
|
Post Options
Thanks(2)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2013 at 10:16am |
|
|
 |
nala52808
VIP Member
Joined: Oct 25 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 50096
|
Post Options
Thanks(4)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2013 at 10:22am |
|
Looks like a certain bhm member might be fuggin with HIV positive females.....interesting.
|
 |
ms_wonderland
Elite Member
Joined: Apr 05 2009
Location: TTT
Status: Offline
Points: 166861
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jan 23 2013 at 10:31am |
|
|
 |