Search

Through an examination of reactions by practitioners of ayurvedic medicine to India's new WTO-mandated Patents Act, this article problematizes approaches to agency, resistance, and the intelligibility of systems of power in social theory. The coming together of law, science, and different practices of medicine in this case is challenging to decipher in terms of its potential effects on India's ayurvedic medical system, and ayurvedic medical practitioners have very divergent positions about how to protect their knowledge from misappropriation-ranging from organized resistance to deliberate inaction-and disagree over whether the new laws present a threat. I present theoretical approaches, largely from science and technology studies, that decenter the role of human agency and consider inaction an informed reaction to power in an effort to begin to focus more fully on problems of agency and intelligibility that social analysts have only peripherally acknowledged in their considerations of power and resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of the HIV/AIDS pandemic has added to the tension between patients' private interests and public health interests regarding medical confidentiality. Many people become infected with HIV because they are unaware of the positive serostatus of their sexual partners. Informing or warning the sexual partners of HIV-positive patients of the patients'serostatus could assist in curtailing the spread of HIV/AIDS because sexual partners can thereby choose to avoid having unprotected sex with infected persons. By law, however, doctors have a duty to their patients to protect their medical confidentiality. Doctors, therefore, face a dilemma concerning which should prevail: patients' right to privacy and confidentiality or the importance to society of controlling the spread of the pandemic. Most medical regulatory bodies do not take clear-cut positions on the issue, leaving the decision to the discretion of individual doctors. The question of whether doctors should be legally empowered to breach the confidence of patients to protect the patients' sexual partners is discussed here with reference to the existing laws of Canada, the United States, and Nigeria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]