Important note: Information in this article was accurate in 1998. The state of the art may have changed since the publication date.
|
|
United Press International; Thursday June 25 11:31 AM EDT
Michael Kirkland
With only three partial dissents, a Supreme Court majority ruled today that HIV is a physical "impairment...that substantially limits one or more of (someone's) major life activities," a condition required by the federal law. The majority said the "activity" in question is the ability to reproduce.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a key swing vote on the court and generally considered a moderate, said, "Reproduction and the sexual dynamics surrounding it are central to the life process itself."
The landmark decision will affect the treatment of HIV-positive people across the nation. All institutions offerring service to the public must make a reasonble attempt to accommodate HIV-positive people or face violation of the ADA. The decision also affects such institutions as state prisons, which the Supreme Court said earlier this month are covered by the ADA.
In September 1994, Sidney Abbott arrived for a dental appointment at the office of Dr. Randon Bragdon. Abbott had noted on her registration form that she had HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, but did did not exhibit AIDS symptoms.
Bragdon told Abbott she had a cavity, but said he would have to treat it in a hospital setting, not his office. Lawyers for Abbott maintain that Bragdon had no hospital privileges at the time.
Abbott then sued the dentist under a provision of the ADA that bans discrimination in public accommodations, such as doctors' offices, hotels or restaurants.
Abbott argued that her ability to reproduce was a "major life activity" was limited by her condition, and as such was covered by the ADA. The prime method of transmitting HIV is sexual contact.
A federal judge granted Abbott summary judgment, and a federal appeals court agreed that reproduction was a "major life activity" covered by the ADA. Today's Supreme Court, though a victory for Abbott, "vacates" or throws out that lower court decision and sends the case back down for a new hearing based on the high court ruling.
(No. 97-156, Bragdon vs. Abbott et al)
980625
UP980608
Copyright © 1998 - United Press International. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission. Reproduction of this article (other than one copy for personal reference) must be cleared through United Press International, Permissions Desk, 1510 H St. N.W. Washington DC 2005. Main Phone Switchboard: 202-898-8000 FAX: 202-898-8057 or 202-898-8147 Email: info@upi.com.
AEGiS is a 501(c)3, not-for-profit, tax-exempt, educational corporation. AEGiS is made possible through unrestricted funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bridgestone/Firestone Charitable Trust, Elton John AIDS Foundation UK, the National Library of Medicine, AIDS Walk of Orange County, 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. .