HIV exceptionalism, CD4+ cell testing, and conscientious subversion

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In recent years, many states in the United States have passed legislation requiring laboratories to report the names of patients with low CD4 cell counts to their state Departments of Health. This name reporting is an integral part of the growing number of "HIV Reporting and Partner Notification Laws" which have emerged in response to recently revised guidelines suggested by the National Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Name reporting for patients with low CD4 cell counts allows for a more accurate tracking of the natural history of HIV disease. However, given that this test is now considered to be an "indicator" of HIV, should it be subject to the same strict consent required for HIV testing? While the CDC has recommended that each state develop its own consent requirements for CD4 cell testing, most states have continued to rely on the presumed consent standards for CD4 cell testing that were in place before the passage of name reporting statutes. This allows physicians who treat patients who refuse HIV testing to order a CD4 cell blood analysis to gather information that is indicative of their patient's HIV status. This paper examines the ethical and legal issues associated with the practice of "conscientious subversion" as it arises when clinicians use CD4 cell counts as a surrogate for HIV testing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)322-326
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
Volume31
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

subversion
HIV
Names
Disease
CD4 Lymphocyte Count
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)
Presumed Consent
statute
Contact Tracing
legislation
physician
Law
AIDS/HIV
Subversion
Cells
Testing
Exceptionalism
Natural History
Legislation
Ethics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Cite this

HIV exceptionalism, CD4+ cell testing, and conscientious subversion. / Jansen, Lynn.

In: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 31, No. 6, 06.2005, p. 322-326.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d2d1db4fd6734c78b27f31530359774a,
title = "HIV exceptionalism, CD4+ cell testing, and conscientious subversion",
abstract = "In recent years, many states in the United States have passed legislation requiring laboratories to report the names of patients with low CD4 cell counts to their state Departments of Health. This name reporting is an integral part of the growing number of {"}HIV Reporting and Partner Notification Laws{"} which have emerged in response to recently revised guidelines suggested by the National Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Name reporting for patients with low CD4 cell counts allows for a more accurate tracking of the natural history of HIV disease. However, given that this test is now considered to be an {"}indicator{"} of HIV, should it be subject to the same strict consent required for HIV testing? While the CDC has recommended that each state develop its own consent requirements for CD4 cell testing, most states have continued to rely on the presumed consent standards for CD4 cell testing that were in place before the passage of name reporting statutes. This allows physicians who treat patients who refuse HIV testing to order a CD4 cell blood analysis to gather information that is indicative of their patient's HIV status. This paper examines the ethical and legal issues associated with the practice of {"}conscientious subversion{"} as it arises when clinicians use CD4 cell counts as a surrogate for HIV testing.",
author = "Lynn Jansen",
year = "2005",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1136/jme.2003.006882",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "322--326",
journal = "Journal of Medical Ethics",
issn = "0306-6800",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - HIV exceptionalism, CD4+ cell testing, and conscientious subversion

AU - Jansen, Lynn

PY - 2005/6

Y1 - 2005/6

N2 - In recent years, many states in the United States have passed legislation requiring laboratories to report the names of patients with low CD4 cell counts to their state Departments of Health. This name reporting is an integral part of the growing number of "HIV Reporting and Partner Notification Laws" which have emerged in response to recently revised guidelines suggested by the National Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Name reporting for patients with low CD4 cell counts allows for a more accurate tracking of the natural history of HIV disease. However, given that this test is now considered to be an "indicator" of HIV, should it be subject to the same strict consent required for HIV testing? While the CDC has recommended that each state develop its own consent requirements for CD4 cell testing, most states have continued to rely on the presumed consent standards for CD4 cell testing that were in place before the passage of name reporting statutes. This allows physicians who treat patients who refuse HIV testing to order a CD4 cell blood analysis to gather information that is indicative of their patient's HIV status. This paper examines the ethical and legal issues associated with the practice of "conscientious subversion" as it arises when clinicians use CD4 cell counts as a surrogate for HIV testing.

AB - In recent years, many states in the United States have passed legislation requiring laboratories to report the names of patients with low CD4 cell counts to their state Departments of Health. This name reporting is an integral part of the growing number of "HIV Reporting and Partner Notification Laws" which have emerged in response to recently revised guidelines suggested by the National Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Name reporting for patients with low CD4 cell counts allows for a more accurate tracking of the natural history of HIV disease. However, given that this test is now considered to be an "indicator" of HIV, should it be subject to the same strict consent required for HIV testing? While the CDC has recommended that each state develop its own consent requirements for CD4 cell testing, most states have continued to rely on the presumed consent standards for CD4 cell testing that were in place before the passage of name reporting statutes. This allows physicians who treat patients who refuse HIV testing to order a CD4 cell blood analysis to gather information that is indicative of their patient's HIV status. This paper examines the ethical and legal issues associated with the practice of "conscientious subversion" as it arises when clinicians use CD4 cell counts as a surrogate for HIV testing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=20444442005&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=20444442005&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/jme.2003.006882

DO - 10.1136/jme.2003.006882

M3 - Article

C2 - 15923478

AN - SCOPUS:20444442005

VL - 31

SP - 322

EP - 326

JO - Journal of Medical Ethics

JF - Journal of Medical Ethics

SN - 0306-6800

IS - 6

ER -