This revolves around ethical issues on patient information disclosure and “exceptions to the rule” so to speak, in which the physician can forego their Hippocratic Oath and disclose an HIV patient’s condition to third parties concerned. This showed that risks to the general population apparently weighs heavier that it becomes acceptable to forego patient confidentiality, mirrored in this statement: “protective privilege ends where the public peril begins” (21), as mentioned Mehta and Padickakudi when they made an example of the Tarasoff case in which the physician was liable due to nondisclosure of the patient’s wish to inflict harm to another. However it is suffice to ask, where is the line drawn on the disclosure to the public? Additional information on benefits that disclosure provides was mentioned, which further strengthens the argument on the importance of foregoing patient confidentiality in HIV cases. There was however, a lack in the information which tackles the risks involved in public disclosure and shows where the writers are leaning as to. It is vital to show the effect that disclosure of confidential information to the public has to the patient’s psyche. Though the article lacked this vital information, it mentioned several ways in which the physician can address the patient’s wish for confidentiality and the disclosure to his wife about his condition by providing proper information and education to the patient in order for him to decide to do the disclosure himself (Mehta and Packikudi 23). These approaches may aid a physician in making decision on disclosure of a patient’s condition.