Discrimination against individuals with HIV or AIDS continues to be a significant issue, particularly in healthcare settings, where such bias can have life-threatening consequences. A recent case at Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, has drawn attention to this problem, as Dr. Roshan Verma, the Head of the ENT Department, refused to operate on a patient with HIV. The incident has sparked widespread controversy and raised serious concerns about medical ethics and patient rights.
The patient in question had been visiting the hospital for nearly three months, seeking treatment for a condition that required surgical intervention. Despite having completed all the necessary paperwork and fulfilling the hospital’s procedural requirements, the patient was denied surgery. Dr. Verma justified his refusal by stating that the patient needed to meet specific surgical standards before the procedure could be performed. However, this decision led to accusations of discrimination, as no such additional standards were outlined.
These patients are to be treated equally using universal precautions. There is no separate protocol for treating HIV positive patients. Treating HIV positive patients with a protocol or with segregation shall be stigmatic and detrimental to the guidelines of NACO. You are therefore requested to do the surgery without further denial.
Prof. A K Atari, Director-Principal
Feeling discriminated against, the patient filed a formal complaint with the hospital’s Director-Principal, Prof. A.K. Atari. In response, Prof. Atari quickly issued an order that the surgery be performed immediately. His directive was clear: HIV-positive patients must be treated like any other patient, with no additional or discriminatory protocols. Prof. Atari also emphasized that any separate treatment protocol for HIV patients would be a direct violation of the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) guidelines. These guidelines explicitly prohibit any form of discrimination against HIV-positive individuals in healthcare settings, reinforcing that all patients, regardless of their HIV status, are entitled to equal treatment and care.
Dr. Verma, defending his decision, explained that his refusal stemmed from a previous incident involving an HIV-positive patient. He cited a case where he had operated on a 7-year-old HIV-positive child without waiting for the HIV test results. This, he claimed, put the operating room staff at risk and led to accusations that he had breached hospital protocol by not ensuring proper safety precautions. Dr. Verma stated that he was seeking administrative guidelines to prevent a similar situation.
Despite this, sources indicate that Dr. Verma had performed similar surgeries after the incident. His refusal in this case has led to a formal investigation, and he has been temporarily barred from participating in foreign visits while the inquiry is ongoing.
Input from various sources
(Rehash//Yash Kamble/MSM)
