Suppose you are a member of the United States Supreme Court. You are tasked with the job of deciding a precedent-setting case about HIV and the physician’s duty to warn. You realize that the various lower court decisions and state laws are inconsistent. Here are the facts of the case. Jane Doe contracted HIV from her husband. The husband knew he was HIV+ when he had unprotected sex with his wife. He failed to disclose his status. Mr. Doe was found guilty of reckless transmission of HIV and is now serving a prison sentence for failure to disclose his status. Mr. and Mrs. Doe were both patients of Dr. X, who knew Mr. Doe was HIV+ but failed to warn Mrs. Doe of the dangers of unprotected sex. Question: Do you take the Tarasoff case as fundamental and hold that Dr. X failed in his duty to warn Mrs. Doe or do you take Confidentiality of HIV-Related Information Act as fundamental and say that a person’s HIV status should remain confidential? Defend your answer. (Answer within the context of the assigned readings.)