To reduce the spread of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Granich et al. 1 ( 2009 ) have proposed a new strategy for universal voluntary HIV testing immediately followed by antiretroviral therapy. Although this proposal is likely to benefit the partners of those affected and thus promote public health, it is by no means clear that it benefits the infected people themselves and indeed it may be harmful. Since the proposal involves an intervention that is not clinically indicated, it falls (...) foul of the normal ethical standards of clinical medicine, which is to act in the best interests of patients. Neither is it a measure that would be imposed under the protection of public health law on people who are seen as representing such danger to others that significant restrictions in liberty are appropriate. Thus, the proposal represents a third category of public health measure. We argue that a coherent ethical framework including a robust process is appropriate to proposals of this kind and that medical research offers a useful model since some research, like this proposal, is motivated not by the interests of the individual participants but by the common good. We outline some possible elements of such an ethical framework. (shrink)

The diagnosis of HIV infection is the point of entry for treatment and prevention services, yet many infected persons in both developed and developing countries remain undiagnosed. To reduce the number of undiagnosed infections, a variety of expanded testing policies have been recommended, including opt-out testing. This testing model assumes that in populations of increased HIV prevalence, voluntary testing should be offered to all patients seen in healthcare settings and performed unless patients specifically decline. While this approach raises ethical issues (...) concerning “voluntariness”, access to care, and stigma, the potential benefits of opt-out testing far outweigh its potential adverse effects. (shrink)