A few days ago, it was reported that the hospital concealed the results of premarital examination, which led to the other party being infected with AIDS. So in this incident, is the hospital's practice legal? How to deal with the concurrence of privacy and health rights of the parties? Let me introduce it to you. According to TV reports, Xiao Xin, a young man from Henan, and his girlfriend Xiao Ye went to yongcheng city Maternal and Child Health Hospital for premarital examination on the day of marriage registration. At that time, the inspection report showed that Xiao was also suspected of being infected with HIV. However, when Xiao Xin asked the hospital about the situation, he got the answer that everything was all right. Yongcheng city CDC said that, in fact, Xiao Ye has been infected with HIV for a long time and has put it on record. Now that Xiao Xin is infected with AIDS, he took the hospital to court in a rage. Although there is no compulsory medical examination for marriage now, China's marriage law clearly stipulates that "husband and wife should be faithful to each other and respect each other." For AIDS that can be transmitted through sexual life and will lead to death, any infected person should truthfully disclose it to the other party. Because this is not only related to the other party's right to know and choose, but also related to the other party's right to life and health. If Xiao Ye deliberately conceals her illness, she is suspected of intentional homicide. If nothing happens, Xiao Ye will face a very serious legal responsibility investigation. Another question that needs to be discussed is, if the hospital also deliberately hides it, what kind of responsibility will it be suspected of? There is a view that whether HIV infection belongs to personal privacy. From the perspective of privacy protection, even if the hospital deliberately hides Xiao Ye's illness from Xiao Xin, it is understandable. This statement seems reasonable, but it can't stand scrutiny. There is often more than one right protected by law, and conflicts often occur between several rights. At this time, we can only weigh the rights that should be given priority protection according to their importance. There seems to be no ambiguity about which is more important, the right to privacy, the right to life and the right to health. When personal privacy threatens the life and health of others, the protection of privacy must give way to the protection of the right to life and health. Others cited the AIDS Prevention and Control Regulations to plead for the hospital. Yes, Article 39 of the Regulations does stipulate: "No unit or individual may disclose the names, addresses, work units, portraits, medical records and other information that may infer their specific identity without the consent of themselves or their guardians." However, the understanding of this provision cannot be rigidly adhered to the literal meaning. The original intention of this legislation is to prohibit revealing the identity information of AIDS patients to unspecified groups in society, so as to prevent social isolation or discrimination, rather than to pry away the right to know of specific groups such as spouses of patients. Xiao Xin's unfortunate infection is an unchangeable fact. Society may not be able to completely put an end to the next "lobule", but it is possible to put an end to the concealment of hospitals. In fact, once the court found that the hospital deliberately concealed its establishment, even if Xiao Xin sued the hospital to make up for some of its economic losses, the responsibility of the hospital was not limited to this. In addition to civil liability, should hospital staff be investigated for administrative liability or even criminal liability?