There is an interesting quote about individual rights which says that your nose ends where mine begins:
"Your rights as an individual end when they affect my rights."
An interesting question was decided by the Supreme Court recently about an individual's rights when they affect another individual's rights. It makes interesting reading.

A doctor from Nagaland had occasion to go down to Chennai for some professional work. There he donated blood for someone. During the blood test it came out that the doctor was infected with the HIV+ (Aids) virus.

Subsequently, the doctor proposed marriage with a lady. However, the marriage was called off on the ground that the blood test conducted at Chennai had shown him to be infected with the deadly virus. The doctor went again to Chennai and got himself tested again. After several tests it was confirmed that he did have the infection.

Since the marriage was settled and then called off, his family members and community became aware of his infection. He was criticised and ostracized from the community in Nagaland. He came down and settled himself in Chennai.

He filed a complaint with the Consumer Forum against the hospital which had leaked or disclosed information about his infection. He said that the hospital was obliged to keep the information of a patient confidential and disclosing it resulted in their violating medical ethics. He demanded that he be suitably compensated by payment of damages by the hospital. The Consumer Commission rejected the contention and directed him to file a civil suit.

The doctor took the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the issue from various angles. It considered the sacred Hippocratic oath and the international code of medical ethics. It found that a doctor had a duty to maintain secrecy about his patient's health. That is an essential part of medical ethics.

However, the court said that such a right was not absolute. It was subject to reasonable restrictions. An important exception when such a right was not absolute would be when failure to disclose such information may put the health of another person at serious risk. It cited a guidance note of the Medical Council in the UK which said that when there is a serious and identifiable risk to a specific person, who, if not informed would be exposed to infection, it would be proper for the doctor to disclose the information and that would not violate his professional ethics.

The Supreme Court said that an individual had fundamental rights of privacy. Again, like all fundamental rights, this was not an absolute right and had reasonable limitations. It said that public disclosure of true private facts may amount to the clash of one person's 'right to be left alone' with another person's right to be informed.

The court said that since the doctor was infected with a deadly virus, its disclosure would not be violative of either the rule of confidentiality or his right of privacy since the lady to whom he was likely to be married was saved in time by such disclosure. If she had not been informed of the facts, she would have been infected with the dreadful disease immediately after the marriage was consummated.

The lady was as much an individual having fundamental rights as the doctor. She enjoyed the right to life, guaranteed to every citizen. The court said that the right to life included a right to lead a healthy life and consequently to be told of such information which can impede a healthy life.

There was an obvious clash of the rights of one with those of another. The hospital was not, therefore, at fault in disclosing the fact of infection to the lady.

The court said that:
"Whenever there was a clash of two persons' rights, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest would be important."

The court also dealt with the rights and limitations of people suffering from Aids. It said that people suffering from Aids deserve full sympathy. They are entitled to all respect as human beings. The society cannot, and should not, avoid them. They have to have their avocation. Government jobs or service cannot be denied to them. However, sex with them or the possibility of sex has to be avoided as otherwise they would infect and communicate the disease to others.

Undoubtedly, this is a landmark judgment dealing with the most important matter of professional ethics.