Here's an interesting scenerio for you:
A paramedic is on a run and gets an accidental needle stick. They get the patient to the hospital, the patient is unstable, the paramedics need to step aside so the doctors and nurses can stabilize the patient. Once the patient is stabilize he/she is comatosed. The paramedic askes the doctor about testing the patient for HIV/AIDS because of his accidental needle stick on the way to the hospital. The doctor informs him that without the patient's and patient's only consent, it can't even be the family's consent, he can not run the test.
This puts us in a bit of a quandry. The patient is unable to give consent, but without that written consent the test can not be run. Then where does that leave the paramedic, how fair is that? As a doctor I know that we need to protect the patient's confidentiality, but who is protecting the healthcare providers?
I pose this question because the situation I described is a true story and it's not clear cut. My collegues at the hospital were even split by this case. What would you have done if you were the Doctor and Administrator on this case and incident report filed by the paramedic?
Well, Lets see i guess i would check the risk when i get the pateints history to see the likelyhood of HIV being there. But either way telling the EMT is out of the question. Anyway if the risk is high, then i would start the EMT on meds and test him or her now and down the road like protocal calls for. Then I would check for a medical power of attorney since she is comatose to see what other steps need to be taken.
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo