This study investigated 204 doctors' and nurses' perceived knowledge of bloodborne pathogens and their attitudes towards bloodborne pathogen-infected health care workers. A structured questionnaire examined: (1) their perceived knowledge of bloodborne pathogens; (2) their attitudes towards bloodborne pathogen-infected personnel; and (3) their opinions on limitation of employment of bloodborne pathogen-infected personnel and restrictions on performing clinical procedures. The levels of HIV-related knowledge were significantly higher than for hepatitis C and B viruses. Although the participants demonstrated more positive attitudes towards hepatitis (...) C- and B-infected health care workers, 64% recommended restricting infected personnel from performing invasive procedures. Attitudes were negatively correlated with opinions on restricting infected personnel from health care work or limiting their involvement in clinical activities. This study highlights the need to formulate a policy to cope with the professional and moral dilemmas related to infected health care workers employed in hospitals, especially for those involved in invasive procedures. (shrink)

Background The potential for transmission of blood-borne pathogens such as hepatitis B virus from infected healthcare workers to patients is an important and difficult issue facing healthcare policymakers internationally. Law and policy on the subject is still in its infancy, and subject to a great degree of uncertainty and controversy. Policymakers have made few recommendations regarding the specifics of practice restriction for health care workers who are hepatitis B seropositive. Generally, they have deferred this work to vaguely defined "expert panels" (...) which will have the power to dictate the conditions under which infected health care workers may continue to practice. Discussion In this paper we use recent Canadian policy statements as a critical departure point to propose more specific recommendations regarding disclosure of transmission risks in a way that minimizes practice restriction of hepatitis B seropositive health care workers without compromising patient safety. The range of arguments proposed in the literature are critically examined from the perspective of ethical analysis. Summary A process for considering the ethical implications of the disclosure of the sero-status of health care workers is advanced that considers the varied perspectives of different stakeholders. (shrink)

Currently, any dentist in the UK who is HIV-seropositive must stop treating patients. This is despite the fact that hepatitis B-infected dentists with a low viral load can continue to practise, and the fact that HIV is 100 times less infectious than hepatitis B. Dentists are obliged to treat HIV-positive patients, but are obliged not to treat any patients if they themselves are HIV-positive. Furthermore, prospective dental students are now screened for hepatitis B and C and HIV, and are not (...) allowed to enrol on Bachelor of Dental Surgery degrees if they are infectious carriers of these diseases. -/- This paper will argue that: (i) the current restriction on HIV-positive dentists is unethical, and unfair; (ii) dentists are more likely to contract HIV from patients than vice versa, and this is not reflected by the current system; (iii) the screening of dental students for HIV is also unethical; (iv) the fact that dentists can continue to practise despite hepatitis B infection, but infected prospective students are denied matriculation, is unethical; and (v) that the current Department of Health protocols, as well as being intrinsically unfair, have further unethical effects, such as the waste of valuable resources on ‘lookback’ exercises and the even more damaging loss of present and future dentists. Regulation in this area seems to have been driven by institutional fear of public fear of infection, rather than any scientific evidence or ethical reasoning. (shrink)

Background: Physicians, if affected by transmissible or impairing diseases, could be hazardous for third persons. Aim: To solve the apparent chasm between patient’s and sick worker’s rights, a consensus-building process leading to hospital-wide policies is the better alternative to individual decision making. Conclusions: Policies have to balance the rights of the sick worker, the right of the other workers, patients and customers, and society’s expectations.