In our class discussion, we conversed about the confidentiality of person’s diagnosed with HIV or AIDS. From what I gathered, it is law for the person infected to tell others before engaging in sexual activity or before being treated by a doctor while the doctor, if infected, is not obligated to inform their patients of their condition. Why are physicians allowed to bypass this “information standard” and allowed ultimate confidentiality rights? When medical procedures are put in action, there is constantly a risk involved. Some of these risks pose as a threat to the patients contracting the disease from the doctor. I feel that this goes against the doctor’s code to only do good and do no harm. Lastly, I feel this conflicts with informed consent. If the patient is not informed of all the issues surrounding a specific treatment or procedure, they are not able to make a informed choice.
While reading through chapter 5 on genetic control, several significant topics shown through. I feel the most important concept covered was genetic abortion. The standards to justify such an abortion outlined in the text are money and societal good. I find it quite interesting that at no point are the parents asked to look at the fulfillment the child will be able to receive out of their life. While I cannot dispute against any reason for a woman having an abortion because it is the right of the woman to make that decision, I just feel the child’s viewpoint should be considered and be a influential factor when coming to this type of conclusion. It is hard for me to comprehend that money can be a determining factor in the life or death of a child. Too often in society do we allow money to dictate our actions.