Except for the lines of argument we have sketched above, there are not many general conclusions that can be drawn from the ethical and philosophical AIDS discussion at the moment. It may happen that a medical research team comes forward tomorrow or next week with an effective cure for all immunodeficiency-related diseases, including full-blown AIDS, and most of our reflections turn out to be useless from the practical viewpoint. But the formulation of ethical guidelines for medical and social practice is (...) not all there is to moral philosophy. Even after each and every one of the problems dealt with in our study has lost all direct ordinary-life relevance, the principles and their application in new practical situatons remain. Therefore, let us hope that no moral philosopher will be reluctant to participate in the AIDS discussion out of the hopefully well-grounded but rather unethical fear that the problem in its primary medical form will cease to exist in the relatively near future. (shrink)

What justified the Center for Disease Control's1999 determination to require HIV casereporting? Why were names necessary? Why didopponents view the reporting of names with suchalarm? This paper retells the history of theencounters over HIV reporting that had occurredsince the mid 1980s. In placing HIV reportingwithin a larger context, however, we understandthe clash between privacy and public healthnecessity as a complex issue, both inhistorical and contemporary practice. Byunderscoring the similarities and differenceswith the histories of surveillance for otherinfectious diseases, vaccination, occupationaldiseases, cancer, (...) and birth defects, and HIVreporting internationally, we can betterunderstand the implications of the HIV debatefor an ethics of surveillance more generally. (shrink)