Unconsented HIV testing in cases of occupational exposure: Ethics, law, and policy

Ethan Cowan, Ruth MacKlin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations


Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) has substantially reduced the risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) after an occupational exposure; nevertheless, exposure to HIV remains a concern for emergency department providers. According to published guidelines, PEP should be taken only when source patients are HIV-positive or have risk factors for HIV. Initiating PEP when source patients are uninfected puts exposed persons at risk from taking toxic drugs with no compensating benefit. Forgoing PEP if the source is infected results in increased risk of acquiring HIV. What should be done if source patients refuse HIV testing? Is it justifiable to test the blood of these patients over their autonomous objection? The authors review current law and policy and perform an ethical analysis to determine if laws permitting unconsented testing in cases of occupational exposure can be ethically justified.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1181-1187
Number of pages7
JournalAcademic Emergency Medicine
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 2012
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Unconsented HIV testing in cases of occupational exposure: Ethics, law, and policy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this