Evaluating the New York State 2010 HIV testing law amendments: context, challenges, and conclusions

Informed consent for HIV screening in the emergency departments and human rights in patient care: seeking the right balance

HIV exceptionalism refers to the fact that the illness is so different from other diseases that testing needs a special approach to informed consent. HIV infected people often visit health clinics, especially emergency departments, years before receiving a diagnosis without being tested for HIV. There is considerable public interest in increasing HIV testing in emergency departments. However, because these departments are sensitive environments that primarily provide urgent and emergency care, a number of ethical questions have been raised about the appropriateness of these settings for the implementation of universal screening programs. Human rights in patient care therefore constitutes an essential theoretical framework for analyzing ethical and legal dilemmas that arise in clinical encounters, thus strengthening the application of human rights principles to the context of patient care.

Informed consent for HIV screening in the emergency departments and human rights in patient care: seeking the right balance

Abstract HIV exceptionalism refers to the fact that the illness is so different from other diseases that testing needs a special approach to informed consent. HIV infected people often visit health clinics, especially emergency departments, years before receiving a diagnosis without being tested for HIV. There is considerable public interest in increasing HIV testing in emergency departments. However, because these departments are sensitive environments that primarily provide urgent and emergency care, a number of ethical questions have been raised about the appropriateness of these settings for the implementation of universal screening programs. Human rights in patient care therefore constitutes an essential theoretical framework for analyzing ethical and legal dilemmas that arise in clinical encounters, thus strengthening the application of human rights principles to the context of patient care.

The End of Written Informed Consent for HIV Testing: Not With a Bang but a Whimper

In 2014, only two states in the United States still mandated specific written informed consent for HIV testing and, after years of controversy, New York ended this requirement, leaving only Nebraska. New York's shift to opt-out testing meant that a singular feature of what had characterized the exceptionalism surrounding HIV testing was eliminated. We trace the history of debates on written informed consent nationally and in New York State. Over the years of dispute from when HIV testing was initiated in 1985 to 2014, the evidence about the benefits and burdens of written informed consent changed. Just as important was the transformation of the political configuration of HIV advocacy and funding, both nationwide and in New York State. What had for years been the subject of furious debate over what a rational and ethical screening policy required came to an end without the slightest public protest. (Am J Public Health. 2017;107:1259-1265. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.303819).