Important note: Information in this article was accurate in 1998. The state of the art may have changed since the publication date.
Important note: Information in this article was accurate in 1998. The state of the art may have changed since the publication date.
Reuters NewMedia - Wednesday December 30, 1998
Leslie Gevirtz
The U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, in a swift and unanimous, 11-page ruling that was made public Wednesday, said that the use of so-called "universal precautions" rendered the risk of transmission of the AIDS virus in a dental office "insignificant."
The case, which eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, involved a Maine dentist who had been sued for discrimination because he told a patient with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that he would fill her cavity only in a hospital, not in his office, and she would have to pay the additional costs.
A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the law that protects the disabled from discrimination covers people who have the virus that causes AIDS, even if they have none of the disease's symptoms.
But the high court ordered the appeals bench to reconsider whether the evidence was sufficient to determine that the patient's infection posed no direct threat to the health and safety of the dentist.
Dentist Randon Bragdon declined to treat Sidney Abbott after she disclosed she had HIV on her patient registration form during a 1994 visit. Bragdon performed an exam and found a cavity, but told her that under his policy, he would only fill the cavity in a hospital setting.
He would charge her his regular fee, but she would have to pay the additional cost of whatever the hospital charged for use of its facilities.
She sued the dentist, as an operator of a place of public accommodation, for discrimination because of her disease.
Bragdon, a dentist for 20 years, argued that treating Abbott in his office would pose a direct threat to his health and safety.
But the appeals court, which heard arguments just three weeks ago, ruled that Bragdon's evidence of the threat was "too speculative or too tangential." Usually appeals courts take months to issue decisions.
"This ruling means that doctors and dentists cannot refuse to treat people with HIV based on their own unscientific fears," said Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders lawyer Bennett Klein, who brought the case on Abbott's behalf.
"People with HIV have experienced widespread discrimination in health care over the course of the epidemic."
981230
RE981210
Copyright © 1998 - Reuters, Ltd. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Contact Reuters.
AEGiS is a 501(c)3, not-for-profit, tax-exempt, educational corporation. AEGiS is made possible through unrestricted funding from Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS, Elton John AIDS Foundation, the National Library of Medicine, Pacific Life Foundation and donations from users like you.
Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 1998. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.
AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.
Copyright ©1980, 1998. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .