public health Aid confidentiality vs protecting public
NYS HIV Confidentiality Law Readings
New York Times (10/29/97) P. A30; Richardson, Linda
The official release of the name of a man accused of infecting at least nine young women in Chautauqua County, NY, with HIV was the first use of a state law provision allowing such a release in cases of “clear and imminent danger to the public health.” The state law gives only a few exceptions to the requirement that the names of HIV-infected individuals be kept confidential, but since Nushawn Williams may have infected numerous women across the state, health officials were granted a court order to publicize his name broadly. The law–which was adopted in 1988–also allows, but does not require, physicians to notify the partners of an infected patient without the patient’s consent. In county health departments, HIV-infected individuals have access to services to help them track down their past partners, but they do not have to use the services. County workers cannot reveal the person’s name or contact the partners themselves.
Note from John: The penalties to county health workers for divulging the name and status of someone with HIV was, suspension, a $5,000 fine and jail time….
However, because of the New York State AIDS Confidentiality Law passed in the mid-1980’s (see specific article about The AIDS Confidentiality Law for reference), local health officials were hindered in getting Nushawn Williams out of the public where he was spreading a deadly disease. Keep in mind that he went back to jail for statutory rape and other offenses but not directly as a result of willfully having unprotected sex as a person with HIV.
If you were a local health officer and could go back to the mid-1980’s when the AIDS Confidentiality Law was instituted with the insight and knowledge of Nushawn Williams, how would you have changed the law to balance the rights to have patient confidentiality vs protecting the public from someone like Williams?
