Search

Objectives. CDC 2006 recommendations for new HIV testing methods in U.S. health-care settings (opt-out approach, general medical consent, and optional prevention counseling) have been the subject of a public ethical debate. Ethical concerns might limit their implementation and affect expanded HIV screening efforts. We compared clinicians' and patients' perspectives on the ethical concerns raised about, justifications provided in support of, and preferences for the 2006 CDC-recommended HIV testing methods for the U.S. health-care setting, in contrast with the 2001 CDC-recommended HIV testing methods (opt-in approach, specific written consent, and mandatory prevention counseling). Methods. We conducted a non-inferiority trial and survey of 249 clinicians and random samples of 1,013 of their patients at three emergency departments and three ambulatory care clinics at university-affiliated hospitals in Rhode Island from June to December 2007. Results. Clinicians found the 2006 CDC HIV testing methods to be more ethically concerning than the 2001 testing methods (i.e., ethically inferior), while patients had few ethical concerns. In regard to ethical justifications cited for the 2006 CDC HIV testing methods, clinicians were more supportive of the ethical justifications cited for using an opt-out approach and general medical consent, while patients were more supportive of the justifications for optional HIV prevention counseling. Clinicians showed a relatively greater preference for the opt-out approach and use of general medical consent, while patients had a relatively greater preference for optional HIV prevention counseling. Conclusions. Clinicians and their patients hold divergent ethical perspectives on CDC's 2006 HIV testing methods. The results indicate an opportunity to review not only these but also future HIV testing recommendations, as well as how they are presented for implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When in 2006 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued revised recommendations for HIV testing in health care settings, vocal opponents charged that use of an 'opt-out' approach to presenting HIV testing to patients; the implementation of nontargeted, widespread HIV screening; the elimination of a separate signed consent; and the decoupling of required HIV prevention counseling from HIV testing are unethical. Here we undertake the first systematic ethical examination of the arguments both for and against the recommendations. Our examination reveals that the ethical concerns raised by the critics predominately pertain not to ethically suspect elements of the recommendations themselves, but to suspicions that they will be implemented improperly. It has not been shown that the recommendations cannot be implemented properly. Here we show that in the United States the recommendations are morally justifiable and that safeguards or regulatory oversight may serve to ensure that the recommendations are properly implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]