A hospital found one of its orthopedic surgeons to be HIV-positive. Initially, the hospital terminated the doctor's surgical privileges. It then reinstated them on the condition that he notify patients of his HIV status before procedures. The hospital also removed the doctor from referral lists for two non-surgical clinics and notified others that he was no longer providing patient care. The doctor sued, claiming discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The key issue is whether the doctor posed a "significant risk" to patient safety due to his HIV-positive status.

1. A hospital has on staff an orthopedic surgeon who is found to be HIV-
positive
A hospital has on staff an orthopedic surgeon who is found to be HIV-positiveGuidelines:
This assignment requires you to post an original thought that may require some research
and outside readings and respond to at least one of your classmates thoughts. In total, you
will need to makea minimum of two posts. Your original thought must be at least two
paragraphs in length with five sentences in each paragraph (should include a citation – see
info on “ sources” below). Your response post mustbe at least one paragraph in length with
five sentences (does not need a citation). While the original post should include a citation,
please remember that this is not a formal academic paper and your postingsshould retain a
“ discussion” flavor (however “ texting terms” are not acceptable.Topic: A hospital has on
staff an orthopedic surgeon who is found to be HIV-positive. The hospital initially
terminates the doctor’ s surgical privileges then reinstates them on the condition that he
notifies hispatients of his HIV status prior to performing any procedures. The hospital also
removes the doctor from referral lists for two non-surgical clinics it operates and widely
circulates information to colleagues, staffand others who made referrals to the doctor that
he is no longer providing patient care. The hospital asserts this was necessary to ensure
patient safety. The doctor files suit and says the hospital isdiscriminating against him under
the Americans with Disabilities Act. Previous cases have examined four factors in
determining whether a person disabled by a communicable disease poses a “ significant
risk” sufficient to justify discrimination. These include: 1) the nature of the risk (how the
disease is transmitted); 2) the duration of the risk (how long the carrier is infectious); 3) the
severity of the risk (the potentialharm to third parties), and 4) the probability that the
disease will be transmitted and cause varying degrees of harm. The doctor argues that the
risk of HIV transmission is infinitely small, less so than the risksassociated with radiation
from various machines used in patient care. He also points out that the hospital has other
quality of care issues and it was more likely that a patient would die from a surgical
mistakemade by a physician than by him infecting the patient with HIV. He further argues
that physicians with drug or alcohol abuse problems are not required to disclose this
information to patients. The hospitalmaintains that its primary concern is patient safety,
and that contracting HIV would result in a debilitating condition and even death for a
patient. Which party do you think should win this case and why? Be sureto back up your
argument using the concepts discussed in the Learning Module this week plus any

2. additional research you do to help with supporting your position.Sources: To receive full
credit, you must cite at least one academic or government source to support your position
in your original thought post. Please do not cite your book – this assignment requires you
todo additional work. The following websites are not appropriate academic citations:
Wikipedia.com; Ehow.com; Ask.com; About.com or anything in the same genre.