Dr. hepatitis C M.D.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

DieselPetrolGrl

twisterChamp&so much more
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2003
Messages
1,894
Reaction score
2
What are your OPINIONS on being treated by a doctor who has hepatitis C?

Would it bother you more for any one type..ie: if it's an internist, a
surgeon, a cardiologist? (what specialties would you consider acceptable and
which ones not.)

Also are there ANY US protocols on allowing/notallowing those doctors to practice. ..not canada folks....just wondering if hospitals could enforce their own rules or limit procedures by these MDs.


(info that i needed when my classmates first debated this Q:http://www.hepatitisnetwork.com/hepc.html) yeah i didnt know the details...pft! 👍
 
Why would I want to use a doctor who is positive for hepatitis C if I can have one who has no chance of spreading the disease?

I dont get the purpose of your articles.
 
DieselPetrolGrl said:
What are your OPINIONS on being treated by a doctor who has hepatitis C?

Would it bother you more for any one type..ie: if it's an internist, a
surgeon, a cardiologist? (what specialties would you consider acceptable and
which ones not.)

Also are there ANY US protocols on allowing/notallowing those doctors to practice. ..not canada folks....just wondering if hospitals could enforce their own rules or limit procedures by these MDs.


(info that i needed when my classmates first debated this Q:http://www.hepatitisnetwork.com/hepc.html) yeah i didnt know the details...pft! 👍

wow that's a lot of info on Hep C. Not sure which articles pertain directly to infected doctors treating patients....
 
uh..if this doctor is going to my PCP...why would i care about if he has hep C or HIV for that matter? hep C is spread through blood...not sure how his blood can get inside of me....
 
uclabruin2003 said:
uh..if this doctor is going to my PCP...why would i care about if he has hep C or HIV for that matter? hep C is spread through blood...not sure how his blood can get inside of me....
this my dear is true

* leans bk *
 
it depends.

is his name actually "Dr Hepatitis C"? because i think i'd let him then.

I don't think it matters much because I'm not going to know. Oh well...
 
yea true but then why have so many others commented that doctors with hepatitis should not do any procedures?
 
I will have to double check but surgeon's who are known to be HIV or Hep C are usually not allowed to operate. Nor work in a field where needle sticks etc are at a higher risk.

and sadly, it is probablymore of a financial reasons that most hospitals won't grant permission if they know.... the lawsuit of a patietn sueing because they contracted this TERMINAL disease would be huge... most places won't open themselves up to this liability.
 
roja said:
I will have to double check but surgeon's who are known to be HIV or Hep C are usually not allowed to operate. Nor work in a field where needle sticks etc are at a higher risk.

and sadly, it is probablymore of a financial reasons that most hospitals won't grant permission if they know.... the lawsuit of a patietn sueing because they contracted this TERMINAL disease would be huge... most places won't open themselves up to this liability.

WHAT???? i really doubt tha tis true. Please find the policy attesting to that; i'm really curious.
 
I dunno, having a doc with hep C is somewhat of a liability if he's doing anything with needles. Granted, the chances of some sort of blood transmission occuring is quite slim if its someone professional, but simply being around someone with infection raises the probability from its normal 0% (although you're probably more likely to die in the proverbial carwreck 😱 ). Not trying to be prejudiced, but there is a minor risk in being around an infected individual.
 
Napoleon1801 said:
there is a minor risk in being around an infected individual.

????????
are you aware that approximately 36,000 people are infected with the virus each year in the United States.
 
I think the point being made was that the risk of infection with Hep C from simply being in the same room with someone is fairly small.

HCV is acquired through bodily fluids.. ie blood, semen,e tc. so a surgeon, although needle sticks aren't common, are at risk of giving it to thier patients in the OR.

Most hospitals will not take the chance that they will infect someone. And most surgeons (or so I have heard) that have contracted HIV or HCV have discontinued thier practice int he OR. Even one patietn accidently infected with HIV or HCV by a surgeon is a risk most don't want to take
 
roja said:
I think the point being made was that the risk of infection with Hep C from simply being in the same room with someone is fairly small.

HCV is acquired through bodily fluids.. ie blood, semen,e tc. so a surgeon, although needle sticks aren't common, are at risk of giving it to thier patients in the OR.

Most hospitals will not take the chance that they will infect someone. And most surgeons (or so I have heard) that have contracted HIV or HCV have discontinued thier practice int he OR. Even one patietn accidently infected with HIV or HCV by a surgeon is a risk most don't want to take

i'd really like to see the written policy...anyone????
 
I wondered if anyone (medical personnel) has actually sued on the basis of Americans with Disabilities Act.
 
kchan99 said:
I wondered if anyone (medical personnel) has actually sued on the basis of Americans with Disabilities Act.

sued? i'm not sure about that, but the act is supposed to make reasonable accommodations for them so they can continue their work.

i really do think it's illegal to bar surgeons from practicing surgery or any procedures

could those who say it is a practice, could you please provide some data attesting to the fact....
 
Taken from the American College of Physicians

Ethics Manual

(excellent source for medical ethics issues)

Medical Risk to Physician and Patient

Traditionally, the ethical imperative for physicians to provide care has overridden the risk to the treating physician, even during epidemics. In recent decades, with better control of such risks, physicians have practiced medicine in the absence of risk as a prominent concern. However, potential occupational exposures such as HIV, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, and viral hepatitis necessitate reaffirmation of the ethical imperative (24).

Physicians should evaluate their risk for becoming infected with pathogens, both in their personal lives and in the workplace, and implement appropriate precautions. Physicians who may have been exposed to pathogens have an ethical obligation to be tested and should do so voluntarily. Infected physicians should place themselves under the guidance of their personal physician or the review of local experts to determine in a confidential manner whether practice restrictions are appropriate on the basis of the physician's compliance with infection control precautions and physical and mental fitness to work. Infection does not in itself justify restrictions on the practice of an otherwise competent health care worker. Health care workers are expected to comply with public health and institutional policies.

Because the diseases mentioned above may be transmitted from patient to physician and because they pose significant risks to physicians' health and are difficult to treat or cure, some physicians may be tempted to avoid the care of infected patients. Physicians and health care organizations are obligated to provide competent and humane care to all patients, regardless of their disease state. Physicians can and should expect their workplace to provide appropriate means to limit occupational exposure through rigorous application of infection control methods. The denial of appropriate care to a class of patients for any reason is unethical (25).

Whether physicians should disclose their condition depends on the likelihood of risk to the patient and relevant law or regulations in their locales. Physicians should remove themselves from care if it becomes clear that the risk associated with contact or with a procedure is significant even if appropriate preventive measures are taken. Physicians are also obligated to disclose their condition after the fact if a clinically significant exposure has taken place.

Physicians have several obligations concerning nosocomial risk of infection. They should help the public to understand the low level of this risk and put it in the perspective of other medical risks while acknowledging public concern. Physicians provide medical care to health care workers, and part of this care is discussing with health care workers their ethical obligation to know their risk for such diseases as HIV or viral hepatitis, to voluntarily seek testing if they are at risk, and to take reasonable steps to protect patients. The physician who provides care for a seropositive health care worker must determine the health care worker's fitness to work. In some cases, seropositive health care workers cannot be persuaded to comply with accepted infection control guidelines, or impaired physicians cannot be persuaded to restrict their practice. In such exceptional cases, the treating physician may need to breach confidentiality and report the incident to the appropriate authorities in order to protect patients and maintain public trust in the profession, even though such actions may have legal consequences.
 
thanks so much, i appreciate it.

I still think it is debatable though since the ethics manual says: " Infection does not in itself justify restrictions on the practice of an otherwise competent health care worker. Health care workers are expected to comply with public health and institutional policies."
 
beanbean said:
Taken from the American College of Physicians

Ethics Manual

(excellent source for medical ethics issues)

Medical Risk to Physician and Patient

Traditionally, the ethical imperative for physicians to provide care has overridden the risk to the treating physician, even during epidemics. In recent decades, with better control of such risks, physicians have practiced medicine in the absence of risk as a prominent concern. However, potential occupational exposures such as HIV, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, and viral hepatitis necessitate reaffirmation of the ethical imperative (24).

Physicians should evaluate their risk for becoming infected with pathogens, both in their personal lives and in the workplace, and implement appropriate precautions. Physicians who may have been exposed to pathogens have an ethical obligation to be tested and should do so voluntarily. Infected physicians should place themselves under the guidance of their personal physician or the review of local experts to determine in a confidential manner whether practice restrictions are appropriate on the basis of the physician's compliance with infection control precautions and physical and mental fitness to work. Infection does not in itself justify restrictions on the practice of an otherwise competent health care worker. Health care workers are expected to comply with public health and institutional policies.

Because the diseases mentioned above may be transmitted from patient to physician and because they pose significant risks to physicians' health and are difficult to treat or cure, some physicians may be tempted to avoid the care of infected patients. Physicians and health care organizations are obligated to provide competent and humane care to all patients, regardless of their disease state. Physicians can and should expect their workplace to provide appropriate means to limit occupational exposure through rigorous application of infection control methods. The denial of appropriate care to a class of patients for any reason is unethical (25).

Whether physicians should disclose their condition depends on the likelihood of risk to the patient and relevant law or regulations in their locales. Physicians should remove themselves from care if it becomes clear that the risk associated with contact or with a procedure is significant even if appropriate preventive measures are taken. Physicians are also obligated to disclose their condition after the fact if a clinically significant exposure has taken place.

Physicians have several obligations concerning nosocomial risk of infection. They should help the public to understand the low level of this risk and put it in the perspective of other medical risks while acknowledging public concern. Physicians provide medical care to health care workers, and part of this care is discussing with health care workers their ethical obligation to know their risk for such diseases as HIV or viral hepatitis, to voluntarily seek testing if they are at risk, and to take reasonable steps to protect patients. The physician who provides care for a seropositive health care worker must determine the health care worker's fitness to work. In some cases, seropositive health care workers cannot be persuaded to comply with accepted infection control guidelines, or impaired physicians cannot be persuaded to restrict their practice. In such exceptional cases, the treating physician may need to breach confidentiality and report the incident to the appropriate authorities in order to protect patients and maintain public trust in the profession, even though such actions may have legal consequences.
bean bean ur post is too long for my short attention span
but for looking all that up you get 4 cookies...good job


btw imo i dont think its a major issue provided that measures - which usually are put into place anywaaaysss - are maintained
i am sure safety methods will be employed by moral physician him/her-self
 
Sorry for the long post but psycho wanted some documention. I can't really get credit for looking anything up. The ethics manual was assigned reading for the exam I have tomorrow.

I recommend that premeds who have questions about some of the moral and ethical situations physicians have to face read this or a similar article. Great prep for interviews and those pesky ethics and current issues in medicine questions.
 
beanbean said:
Sorry for the long post but psycho wanted some documention. I can't really get credit for looking anything up. The ethics manual was assigned reading for the exam I have tomorrow.

I recommend that premeds who have questions about some of the moral and ethical situations physicians have to face read this or a similar article. Great prep for interviews and those pesky ethics and current issues in medicine questions.

i appreciate it; i saved the link for future reference about any situation.

good luck on your exam
 
Top