Dentistry and the ethics of infection


Play all audios:

A selection of abstracts of clinically relevant papers from other journals. The abstracts on this page have been chosen and edited by John R. Radford. ABSTRACT '...current DH guidelines


are unethical, and should be changed'. MAIN Shaw D. _J Med Ethics_ 2008; 34: 184–187 This area abounds with paradoxes. For example, the author points out '...the definition (of an


Exposure Prone Procedure - EPP) applied to dentistry is the same as that for a cardiac surgeon...'. In addition, if dental practitioners are infected with Hepatitis B and have low


viral loads, they can carry out EPPs, yet if they are HIV positive and work in the UK, they must cease practice. It is argued that a 'reasonable protocol would temporarily oblige a


dentist to refrain from EPPs until their HIV is under control' as indeed is the practice in certain states in the USA. When it comes to the eligibility of dental students to embark on


their undergraduate programme, of those 4 UK dental schools that replied following contact, all screened for HBV, HCV and tuberculosis and three for HIV. It is argued forcefully, that the


exclusion of dental students based on their blood-borne virus status is unethical, as long as the student poses no risk to the public. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT


THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Dentistry and the ethics of infection. _Br Dent J_ 206, 23 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.1143 Download citation * Published: 10 January 2009 *


Issue Date: 10 January 2009 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.1143 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link


Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative