The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
March 1992 (Volume 70)
Quarterly Article
Norman Daniels
December 2024
Dec 19, 2024
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
The ethical controversy surrounding the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines for restricting the practice of HIV-infected health professionals appears to hinge on whether we give priority to the rights of infected workers or patients. We cannot simply dismiss the concerns of patients as irrational, despite the low risks of transmission. Nor can we avoid the dispute about rights by claiming with the AMA that professionals have obligations to refrain from imposing “identifiable risks,” however low, on patients. Nevertheless, allowing the full exercise of patient rights, either by giving patients the opportunity to know the risks they face and to switch providers, or by removing infected providers (compulsory switching), would make each of us worse off. This gives us adequate reason to reject these guidelines and to emphasize other infection control measures.
Author(s): Norman Daniels
Download the Article
Read on JSTOR
Volume 70, Issue 1 (pages 3–42) Published in 1992
