Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T23:53:16.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing Public Health Ethics: Why the CDC's HIV Screening Recommendations May Violate the Least Infringement Principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Matthew W. Pierce ,
Suzanne Maman ,
Allison K. Groves ,
Elizabeth J. King  and
Sarah C. Wyckoff
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The least infringement principle has been widely endorsed by public health scholars. According to this principle, public health policies may infringe upon “general moral considerations” in order to achieve a public health goal, but if two policies provide the same public health benefit, then policymakers should choose the one that infringes least upon “general moral considerations.” General moral considerations can encompass a wide variety of goals, including fair distribution of burdens and benefits, protection of privacy and confidentiality, and respect for autonomy.

In this article, we argue that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) 2006 HIV screening recommendations (“Recommendations”) may violate the least infringement principle. This is a concern because, although not legally binding, the Recommendations appear to have already influenced state laws and will likely continue to do so as legislative proposals continue to be passed. At a minimum, therefore, the Recommendations have important implications for HIV screening within the United States.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , Summer 2011 , pp. 263 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Childress, J. F., Faden, R. R., Gaare, R. D., Gostin, L. O., Kahn, J., Bonnie, R. J., Kass, N. E., Mastroianni, A. C., Moreno, J. D., and Nieburg, P., “Public Health Ethics: Mapping the Terrain,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 30, no. 1 (2002): 169–177, at 172; Upshur, R. E. G., “Principles for the Justification of Public Health Intervention,” Canadian Journal of Public Health 93, no. 2 (2002): 101–103, at 102; Gostin, L. O., Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint, 2nd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008): at 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. (Childress, et al.), supra note 1, at 173.Google Scholar
Id., at 170–171.Google Scholar
The distinction between “testing” and “screening” is not important for our analysis. We tend to use the term “screening” when referring to policies aimed at populations and “testing” when discussing individual patients and rates of uptake, but the two terms are, for our purposes, interchangeable.Google Scholar
Branson, B. M., Handsfield, H. H., Lampe, M. A., Janssen, R. S., Taylor, A. W., and Lyss, S. B., Clark, J. E., “Revised Recommendations for HIV Testing of Adults, Adolescents, and Pregnant Women in Health-Care Settings,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports 55, no. RR14 (2006): 1–17.Google Scholar
Bartlett, J. G., Branson, B. M., Fenton, K., Hauschild, B. C., Miller, V., and Mayer, K. H., “Opt-Out Testing for Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the United States: Progress and Challenges,” JAMA 300, no. 8 (2008): 945–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Branson, et al., supra note 5.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 8.Google Scholar
Gostin, L. O., “HIV Screening in Health Care Settings: Public Health and Civil Liberties in Conflict?” JAMA 296, no. 16 (2006): 2023–2025, at 2025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centers for Disease Control, “HIV Testing among Pregnant Women: United States and Canada, 1998 – 2001,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports 51, no. 45 (2002): 1013–1016.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Centers for Disease Control, Module 6: HIV Testing and Counseling for PMTCT,” at Module 6–20, available at <http://www.cdc.gov/globalaids/Resources/pmtct-care/docs/TM/Module_6TM.pdf> (last visited March 16, 2011); National AIDS Control Organization, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Operational Guidelines for Integrated Counseling and Testing Centres, July 2007, at 16, available at <http://www.nacoonline.org/upload/Final%20Publications/Operational%20Guidelines%20for%20Integrated%20Counseling%20and%20Testing%20Centres.pdf> (last visited March 15, 2011).+(last+visited+March+16,+2011);+National+AIDS+Control+Organization,+Ministry+of+Health+and+Family+Welfare,+Government+of+India,+Operational+Guidelines+for+Integrated+Counseling+and+Testing+Centres,+July+2007,+at+16,+available+at++(last+visited+March+15,+2011).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., id. (Centers for Disease Control); Cohan, D., Gomez, E., Greenberg, M., Washington, S., and Charlebois, E. D., “Patient Perspectives with Abbreviated versus Standard Pre-test Counseling in the Prenatal Setting: A Randomized-Control, Non-inferiority Trial,” PLoS One 4, no. 4 (2009): E5166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., National AIDS Control Organization, supra note 12, at 16; id. (Cohan, et al.).Google Scholar
The concept of a “substantially autonomous” decision is borrowed from Faden and Beauchamp's “A History and Theory of Informed Consent.” Faden and Beauchamp do not specifically define what information must be understood in order for a decision to be “substantially autonomous,” but they do argue that substantially autonomous decisions require some level of understanding of the foreseeable consequences of a decision. Faden, R. and Beauchamp, T. L., A History and Theory of Informed Consent (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986): At 237–240, 248–255.Google Scholar
World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, “Guidance on Provider-Initiated Testing and Counseling in Health Facilities,” 2007, at 9, available at <http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241595568_eng.pdf> (last visited March 16, 2011).+(last+visited+March+16,+2011).>Google Scholar
Bayer, R. and Edington, C., “HIV Testing, Human Rights, and Global AIDS Policy: Exceptionalism and Its Discontents,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 34, no. 3 (2009): 301–323, at 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Branson, et al., supra note 5, at 5.Google Scholar
See Centers for Disease Control, supra note 11; Branson, B. M., Lee, J. H., Mitchell, B., Nolt, B., Robbins, A., and Thomas, M. C., “Targeted Opt-In vs. Routine Opt-Out HIV Testing in STD Clinics,” Abstract, Presented at the 13th meeting of the International Society for Sexually Transmitted Diseases Research, Denver, Colorado, July 11–14, 1999; Breese, P., Burman, W., Shlay, J., and Guinn, D., “The Effectiveness of a Verbal Opt-Out System for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Xcreening during Pregnancy,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 104, no. 1 (2004): 134–137; Jayaraman, G. C., Preiksaitis, J. K., and Larke, B., “Mandatory Reporting of HIV Infection and Opt-Out Prenatal Screening for HIV Infection: Effect on Testing Rates,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 168, no. 6 (2003): 679–682; Perez, F., Zvandaziva, C., Engelsmann, B., and Dabis, F., “Acceptability of Routine HIV Testing (‘Opt-Out’) in Antenatal Services in Two Rural Districts of Zimbabwe,” Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 41, no. 4 (2006): 514–520; Stanley, B., Fraser, J., and Cox, N. H., “Uptake of HIV Screening in Genitourinary Medicine after Change to ‘Opt-Out’ Consent,” BMJ 326, no. 7400 (2003): 1174; Simpson, W. M., Johnstone, F. D., Goldberg, D. J., Gormley, S. M., and Hart, G. J., “Antenatal HIV Testing: Assessment of a Routine Voluntary Approach,” BMJ 318, no. 7199 (1999): 1660–1661; Stringer, E. M., Stringer, J. S., Cliver, S. P., Goldenberg, R. L., and Goepfert, A. R., “Evaluation of a New Testing Policy for Human Immunodeficiency Virus to Improve Screening Rates,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 98, no. 6 (2001): 1104–1108.Google Scholar
See id. (Branson, et al.); id. (Breese, et al.), at 135; id. (Perez, et al.), at 515, 518; id. (Stanley, et al.), at 1174.Google Scholar
See Stringer, et al., supra note 19.Google Scholar
See Breese, et al., supra note 19.Google Scholar
See Stringer, et al., supra note 19.Google Scholar
See Branson, et al., supra note 19; Stanley, et al., supra note 19.Google Scholar
See Cohan, et al., supra note 13; Yudin, M. H., Moravac, C., and Shah, R. R., “Influence of an ‘Opt-Out’ Test Strategy and Patient Factors on Human Immunodeficiency Virus Screening in Pregnancy,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 110, no. 1 (2007): 81–86; Manzi, M., Zachariah, R., Teck, R., Buhendwa, L., Kazima, J., Bakali, E., Firmenich, P., and Humblet, P., “High Acceptability of Voluntary Counselling and HIV-Testing but Unacceptable Loss to Follow Up in a Prevention of Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission Programme in Rural Malawi: Scaling-Up Requires a Different Way of Acting,” Tropical Medicine and International Health 10, no. 12 (2005): 1242–1250; Malyuta, R., Newell, M. L., Ostergren, M., Thorne, C., and Zhilka, N., “Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV Infection: Ukraine Experience to Date,” European Journal of Public Health 16, no. 2 (2006): 123–127.Google Scholar
Id. (Yudin, et al.), at 82.Google Scholar
See Manzi, et al., supra note 25, at 1243.Google Scholar
See Cohan, et al., supra note 13; Malyuta, et al., supra note 25.Google Scholar
See Cohan, et al., supra note 13.Google Scholar
Surprisingly, the researchers concluded that their results supported adoption of an abbreviated approach to pretest counseling despite the fact that there was no statistical difference in testing uptake or decisional conflict between the two groups and despite the fact that women who received standard pretest counseling had significantly higher mean knowledge scores compared to women who received only abbreviated counseling. See Cohan, et al., supra note 13.Google Scholar
See Malyuta, , supra note 25, at 124.Google Scholar
See Perez, et al., supra note 19; Simpson, et al., supra note 19.Google Scholar
See Branson, et al., supra note 5, at 5.Google Scholar
See Perez, et al., supra note 19.Google Scholar
See Simpson, et al., supra note 19; Simpson, W. M., Johnstone, F. D., and Boyd, F. M. et al., “Uptake and Acceptability of Antenatal HIV Testing: Randomised Controlled Trial of Different Methods of offering the Test,” BMJ 316, no. 7127 (1998): 262–267.Google Scholar
In fact, if anything, the first phase of the study suggests no correlation between the amount of information patients are given and their anxiety levels. During the first phase, patients were randomized to four different opt-in groups, in which HIV testing was offered to all patients, and one control group, in which testing was not offered. None of the groups was given pretest counseling, but the four treatment groups did differ in the amount of information they received. Moreover, in contrast to the CDC recommendations, patients in two of the groups were informed about the potential disadvantages of being tested for HIV. The researchers did not find any significant differences in testing uptake or patient anxiety based on the amount of information patients received. See Simpson, et al., supra note 35.Google Scholar
See Simpson, et al., supra note 35, at 263.Google Scholar
See Simpson, et al., supra note 19.Google Scholar
Ekwueme, D. U., Pinkerton, S. D., Holtgrave, D. R., and Branson, B. M., “Cost Comparison of Three HIV Counseling and Testing Technologies,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 25, no. 2 (2003): 112–121; Farnham, P. G., Gorsky, R. D., Holtgrave, D. R., Jones, W. K., and Guinan, M. E., “Counseling and Testing for HIV Prevention: Costs, Effects, and Cost-Effectiveness of More Rapid Screening Tests,” Public Health Reports 111, no. 1 (1996): 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtgrave, D. R., “Costs and Consequences of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Recommendations for Opt-Out HIV Testing,” PLoS Medicine 4, no. 6 (2007): 1011–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frith, L., “HIV Testing and Informed Consent,” Journal of Medical Ethics 31, no. 12 (2005): 699–700; Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F., Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009): at 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Gostin, , supra note 10.Google Scholar
Armstrong, R., “Mandatory HIV Testing in Pregnancy: Is There Ever a Time?” Developing World Bioethics 8, no. 1 (2008): 1–10, at 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herek, G. M., Capitanio, J. P., and Widaman, K. F., “HIV-Related Stigma and Knowledge in the United States: Prevalence and Trends, 1991–1999,” American Journal of Public Health 92, no. 3 (2002): 371–377; Mahajan, A. P., Sayles, J. N., Patel, V. A., Remien, R. H., Ortiz, D., Szekeres, G., and Coates, T. J., “Stigma in the HIV/AIDS Epidemic: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for the Way Forward,” AIDS 22, no. 2, Supp. (2008): S67–S79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, M. A., Collins, R., Cunningham, W. E., Morton, S. C., Zierler, S., Wong, M., Tu, W., and Kanouse, D. E., “Perceived Discrimination in Clinical Care in a Nationally Representative Sample of HIV-Infected Adults Receiving Health Care,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 20, no. 9 (2005): 807–813; Elford, J., Fowzia, I., Bukutu, C., and Anderson, J., “HIV-Related Discrimination Reported by People Living with HIV in London, UK,” AIDS and Behavior 12, no. 2 (2007): 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, A., Hanssens, C., and Kelly, B., “Protecting HIV-Positive Women's Human Rights: Recommendations for the United States National HIV/AIDS Strategy,” Reproductive Health Matters 17, no. 34 (2009): 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zierler, S., Cunningham, W. E., Andersen, R., Shapiro, M. F., Bozzette, S. A., Nakazono, T., Morton, S., Crystal, S., Stein, M., Turner, B., and St. Clair, P., “Violence Victimization after HIV Infection in a US Probability Sample of Adult Patients in Primary Care,” American Journal of Public Health 90, no. 2 (2000): 208–215.Google Scholar
Lo, B., Wolf, L., and Sengupta, S., “Ethical Issues in Early Detection of HIV Infection to Reduce Vertical Transmission,” Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 25, no.2, Supp. (2000): S136–S143; Bayer, R., “Changing the Paradigm for HIV Testing - The End of Exceptionalism,” New England Journal of Medicine 355, no. 7 (2006): 647–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. (Lo, et al.), at 132.Google Scholar
Keane, V., Hammond, G., Keane, H., and Hewitt, J., “Quantitative Evaluation of Counseling Associated with HIV Testing,” Southeast Asian Journal Tropical Medicine Public Health 36, no. 1 (2005): 228–232.Google Scholar
De Rosa, C. and Marks, G., “Preventive Counseling of HIV-Positive Men and Self-Disclosure of Status to Sex Partners: New Opportunities for Prevention,” Health Psychology 17, no. 3 (1998): 224–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Gostin, , supra note 1, at 141–142.Google Scholar
See Childress, et al., supra note 1, at 172.Google Scholar
See Gostin, , supra note 1, at 70–71.Google Scholar
See Branson, , supra note 5, at 5.Google Scholar