Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 697

524US2

Unit: $U96

[09-15-00 14:39:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

652

BRAGDON v. ABBOTT

Opinion of the Court

to combat the risk of HIV transmission. They do not assess
the level of risk.

Nor can we be certain, on this record, whether the 1991
American Dental Association Policy on HIV carries the
weight the Court of Appeals attributed to it. The Policy
does provide some evidence of the medical community’s
objective assessment of the risks posed by treating people
infected with HIV in dental ofﬁces.

It indicates:

“Current scientiﬁc and epidemiologic evidence indicates
that there is little risk of transmission of infectious
diseases through dental treatment if recommended in-
fection control procedures are routinely followed. Pa-
tients with HIV infection may be safely treated in pri-
vate dental ofﬁces when appropriate infection control
procedures are employed. Such infection control proce-
dures provide protection both for patients and dental
personnel.” App. 225.

We note, however, that the Association is a professional or-
ganization, which, although a respected source of information
It
on the dental profession, is not a public health authority.
is not clear the extent to which the Policy was based on the
Association’s assessment of dentists’ ethical and professional
duties in addition to its scientiﬁc assessment of the risk to
which the ADA refers. Efforts to clarify dentists’ ethical
obligations and to encourage dentists to treat patients with
HIV infection with compassion may be commendable, but
the question under the statute is one of statistical likelihood,
not professional responsibility. Without more information
on the manner in which the American Dental Association
formulated this Policy, we are unable to determine the Poli-
cy’s value in evaluating whether petitioner’s assessment of
the risks was reasonable as a matter of law.

The court considered materials submitted by both parties
on the cross-motions for summary judgment. The peti-
tioner was required to establish that there existed a genuine