Medical Ethics dilemma- My real life example

A good point was brought up by a Doctor yesterday on the burden of knowledge.

Let's say most of the population has some form of HSV. Most of the population doesn't know this, and thus they can't disclose what they don't have any knowledge about.

A medical student takes his classes, and learns that through his textbook, that he himself as a good chance of having HSV. He has the burden of knowledge, but is he expected to disclose this known possibility to every potential partner? The doctor argued no. That raises another important question, to what point is the burden of knowledge great enough that you have to disclose? There's a range of scenarios, from someone's blood test saying negative, all the way to lab results confirming you are. In between that, there's the medical student, there's someone testing negative on a swab, there's someone testing negative on a swap but haven't gotten back their blood work yet, there's negative on a swab and positive for HSV1, and then there's negative on the swab but positive for HSV2 through bloodwork, or someone who tested negative on a swab, but has coldsores orally, and has HSV1 in their bloodwork. The list goes on and on.

There's no clear answer to at which point, does the burden of knowledge become great enough that you "should" (normative statement again) disclose. I asked a number of medial professionals on their opinion yesterday. The vast majority said that since I have been deemed to be less likely to have HSV than the normal population, that I do not have enough of a burden to disclose. I could have gone home with that opinion, wilfully ignorant, but instead I go on reddit, where I knew that I would get very strong opinions on the contrary.

" You have had an unknown infection on your genitals. It's your responsibility to investigate your health and figure out what's going on to the best of your abilities."

I had symptoms of something, I went and got tested. My tests came back negative, and another reasonable explanation for my symptoms came up in the results. Furthermore, it was the opinion of two doctors that I chances are this breakout was not caused by HSV. Sure, the chance I have HSV might not be 0, but in the eyes of medical professionals, I've done enough due diligence to lower my chances back below the population's statistic. You may disagree, but again, that's a question of opinion, of ethics, of this thread, which you

And I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the case precedent example. So everyone is liable (in that jurisdiction), regardless of knowledge of their knowledge of status. I made this thread for ethics, not on law, which I would hold to be two different things.

/r/askphilosophy Thread Parent