Glantz L H, Mariner W K, Annas G J
Boston University School of Public Health.
Milbank Q. 1992;70(1):43-79.
An analysis of the restrictive proposals provoked by the case of Kimberly Bergalis and four other patients apparently infected with HIV during the course of dental treatment reveals that they resulted from an inability to evaluate appropriately the infinitesimal risk of HIV transmission from practitioner to patient. The proposals also resulted from an effort to create risk prevention policy without appreciating the distinction between regulating things or procedures, which have no human rights, and regulating people, who have rights that should not be infringed without serious justification. This analysis demonstrates that the proposed restrictive policies are not justified because they do nothing to prevent the spread of HIV, and they cause unnecessary and substantial harm to health care practitioners.
对金伯利·伯加利斯案以及其他四名在牙科治疗过程中显然感染艾滋病毒的患者所引发的限制性提议进行分析后发现，这些提议源于无法恰当地评估从从业者到患者的艾滋病毒传播的极小风险。这些提议还源于在制定风险预防政策时，没有认识到对无人权的事物或程序进行监管与对有人权且若无充分理由不应被侵犯的人进行监管之间的区别。这一分析表明，所提议的限制性政策是不合理的，因为它们无助于预防艾滋病毒的传播，而且会对医护人员造成不必要的重大伤害。
