Doctor censured for A.I.D.S. test note

Press, 29 April 1987, Page 3

Doctor censured for A.I.D.S. test note

PA Dunedin A doctor who wrote “Check for A.R.V. (A.I.D.S. virus)” on a blood-alcohol test form has been censured by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. The blood sample was being sent to the D.S.I.R. for analysis and the doctor was warning the laboratory, but the man being tested saw the form and became very angry, thinking he was being tested for A.I.D.S.

Later he complained to the Disciplinary Committee.

The committee found there had been no breach of confidence by the doctor, named in a report of the case in the latest “New Zealand Medical Journal” as Dr B, but the committee found “serious shortcomings in his management of Mr A.” In April last year Dr B, acting under his contract with the local authority, took Mr A’s blood sample.

“In a discussion with Mr A, he established a good rapport and concluded from the general demeanour of Mr A that he was a homosexual. In fact, Mr A was a homosexual but this was not known as a fact to Dr B at the time.” At the bottom of the form Dr B filled out was a

note asking the doctor for an indication if the person was suffering from an infectious disease for which precautions should be taking when handling the blood specimen.

Beside this Dr B wrote “Check for A.R.V.” and put two crosses alongside, “presumably to draw attention to his comment. “He decided that as, in his judgment, Mr A was a homosexual, he was within the class of persons who might be suffering from A.I.D.S. and that therefore special precautions in handling the blood specimen should be taken.” Dr B left the form on the desk to speak to the traffic officer and Mr A read the annotation.

“He became very angry, confronted Dr B and shouted, ‘Doctor, are you testing me for A.I.D.S.?’ ”

Dr B tried to explain that it was only a warning for D.S.I.R. staff and the blood was only tested for alcohol level.

“But Mr A, in his upset state, did not understand this point of view.” Mr A complained that: Dr B had committed a breach of confidence by writing, the annotation which could become available to people beyond the boundaries of medical secrecy; that the

annotation was improper certification and that he had been treated in a cavaliar fashion by Dr B when he asked him if he was being tested for A.I.D.S. The committee found Dr B made serious errors of judgment.

He assumed that Mr A was a homosexual and would have a high enough chance of having A.I.D.S. to warn laboratory technicians.

Dr B’s “Check for A.R.V.” could only mean to most observers he was asking for Mr A’s blood to be tested for A.I.D.S. While Dr B never had any intention to test for A.I.D.S. (the D.S.I.R. does not have such facilities) Mr A was justified in believing that was the intention.

Dr B erred by leaving the completed form on the desk, leading to the great distress of Mr A.

The committee also felt Dr B later, in more tranquil circumstances, should have tried to redress the hurt felt by Mr A.

The committee found that all the shortcomings taken together were “conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner.” As well as being censured, Dr B was ordered to pay $2054, half the costs of the inquiry.