Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF This just amazes and saddens me... <a href="http://news.aol.com/story/_a/hiv-positive-toddler-banned-from-pool/20070708152909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001" target="_blank">http://news.aol.com/story/_a/h iv-positive-toddler-banned-from-pool/20070708152909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001</a>
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo This is just so sad, and the results of the poll are sickening. The ignorance of people just POs me even more. I am incenced! He's just a kid for crying out loud, and the clinical risks are not there!
Originally Posted By jonvn Doesn't it say the RV park wanted a doctors note saying it was ok? That seems to be a very reasonable thing for them to do, if they don't know, to ask for a medical note saying it's ok. I don't think the RV park owners did anything wrong. They were willing to have the kid there provided they got a note from someone saying it was ok. I don't see any issue, other than the parents freaking out and demanding stuff from others that should be their responsibility. It's not up to the world to know everything about every disease. If you have a disease, then you need to be the one who explains it to other people. And if that means having to present a doctor's note saying things are ok, I don't see the problem with that.
Originally Posted By Kayoss What's worse, the fact that the parents would reveal (what should've stayed) private information about their son's health to a stranger that most likely wouldn't be up-to-date on HIV issues (Alabama is known for many things, and medical sanity isn't one of them) or the (baffling) statement by the parents that their child has 7 years to live? This makes me think (unfortunately) it was nothing but a ploy the get attention on the parent's part (which really makes me sick). I assume the kid's about 3 and this is the old (outdated) 10-year life expectancy from the early 90s that they used to 'blanket-slap' on anyone diagnosed with HIV. The truth is...HIV in 2007.... with current (and very near future) treatments.... is now a Chronic Manageable Illness. More serious, if left untreated, but no otherwise not much different then any other Chronic Manageable Illness. This child (with proper treatment) should have no different of a life expectancy then any other child of his age. This just infuriates me... on so many levels... I just hope the child is able to receive proper medical care as a result of this media hoopla.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Doesn't it say the RV park wanted a doctors note saying it was ok? That seems to be a very reasonable thing for them to do, if they don't know, to ask for a medical note saying it's ok.<< Then they should ask for a doctor's note for just about any communicable disease possible. I think the burden of responsibility needs to be shared. The park owners need to learn about HIV and AIDS, and the foster parents need to practice some discretion in revealing medical information about their child.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>The truth is...HIV in 2007.... with current (and very near future) treatments.... is now a Chronic Manageable Illness. More serious, if left untreated, but no otherwise not much different then any other Chronic Manageable Illness. This child (with proper treatment) should have no different of a life expectancy then any other child of his age. This just infuriates me... on so many levels...<< Tell that to the people I know for whom the current HIV treatments have had little to no success. Even those who respond well to the treatments eventually find that the medications lose effectiveness over time. There is also the matter of the side effects of these drugs. Sure, protease inhibitors have made HIV treatment much more manageable and successful but at the expense of other problems. I can tell you this: in spite of what the drug companies would have people think, I don't think of HIV as a "manageable disease." It is a life-threatening illness for which there is no cure.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Then they should ask for a doctor's note for just about any communicable disease possible." If they don't know that it's ok, and the parents are saying it is, then yes, they should. Absolutely. I don't think the burden needs to be shared. They didn't refuse these people, they said show a note saying it is ok. This is not an unreasonable request. I don't know about leprosy, for example. Not a lot. And if I owned an RV park, I'd want a note saying it was ok, too. Or TB. Any number of illnesses that somehow I became aware that someone had. And, really, why exactly did this park owner even know about any of this? That makes no sense at all.
Originally Posted By jonvn I've talked to a couple of doctors about this, and they seem to think it's a manageable illness. That with the current drugs, you can stay alive for years now. There are bad side effects, though, yes....But I would also think there are some for whom the drugs don't work, too. Overall, the impression is that it's treatable if not curable, but the treatment causes other issues.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad What an interesting topic. Why did the parents even tell he was positive?
Originally Posted By x Pirate_Princess x That was exactly my thought...how did they know, and why did the parents tell? If the parents know it's a non-issue, then they shouldn't have said anything. Period. Their fault. It's like a situation that happened to me last week. Took DD2 to the ER, she had a sinus infection and pink eye. The pink eye, however, was viral, and therefore, not contagious. I happened to mention that she had pink eye at school, and they wanted a note. If i hadn't mentioned anything, they probably wouldn't have said anything. But since I opened my mouth, then yeah, they wanted proof.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip If people don't read newspapers or magazines (a lot of people, unfortunately) they probably have little knowledge of current information regarding HIV. Many people are going on very old information, which I think is unintentionally reinforced in various ways. When the AIDS scare first surfaced my dentist and his dental assistants all started wearing rubber gloves and face masks (hot, huh?). LOL At any rate, this has continued until today; long past the time when it was known that the chance of transmission through saliva or causal contact with blood was virtually none. I think what probably happened is that the dentist decided that his patients were now used to the masks and gloves, and since you never know what might be coming next (SARS, Bird Flu, etc.) it probably made since to just continue. Unfortunately, for patients who know no better, it probably reinforces the fear that casual contact can transmit AIDS. As usual, more education is needed. But where do you start? People must WANT the knowledge, and unfortunately I think there are a significant percentage that really don't care.
Originally Posted By x Pirate_Princess x Which is really sad, IMO. I was talking to someone today and saying that with all the education out there, that I'm surprised people are still contracting it. Seriously, how hard is it to protect yourself? And if people are still going on old info, then wouldn't they be erring on the side of caution? Without turning this into a debate about drugs and sex (double checking it's in World Events), how stupid do people really have to be to not know the basics (can't contract from a pool, toilet seat, hugging, etc). You can't get pregnant in a pool, you can't contract HIV in a pool. The HIV virus lives for a very very short time out of the body. And it's nearly non-existant in saliva, you'd have to drink over a gallon to contract it that way (unless both parties have an open cut, of course). I could go on...but I won't. Simple precautions are all that is needed. Rubber gloves if dealing with blood or other fluids (which should be standard practice anyway...ewww). Don't share needles (duh) and USE protection (double duh).
Originally Posted By jonvn oh, i realize what you mean...but...you really can get pregnant in a pool. You just have to make an effort to do so.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <-- takes in a deep breath <-- prepares to make nice to jonvn No, not THAT! Get your mind out of the gutters. Seriously, I agree with jonvn. If the resort owner wasn't COMPLETELY certain of the medical protocol, he was right to err on the side of caution. Of course, there would have been no risk to anybody to have the kid in the pool. But I can forgive an RV Park owner for not being up-to-date on the latest news about HIV transmission. To be honest, I don't think that news has a history of being transmitted honestly and effectively. He doesn't make an effort to follow it, and it's not like there's been a credible comprehensive campaign about modes of transmission recently. Sadly, it seems to me that this could be a case of someone who was trying to get media attention. Not that more media attention to modes of HIV transmission would be a bad thing... but if that's the case I feel sorry for the resort owner.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper As a teacher, we are told to have gloves handy, and use them when assisting a child with an injury, nosebleed, or any incident involving blood. The main reason is clear and always has been: HIV. HIV remains costly and deadly, even if it is treatable. The park owners were well within rights and reason to cover themselves, protect their patrons, and ask questions. While I think we are well past the days where HIV-positive are quarantined, or we avoid shaking hands with them, etc., there is still room for common-sense caution. Casual contact may have been eliminated from the list of transmission possibilities, but does the transfer of fluids in a swimming pool fall under casual contact? Do pool chemicals eliminate HIV? I think it was probably safe, but I'M NOT SURE. I'm sure the typical layperson is not aware of the research regarding HIV transmission in swimming pools either. The park owners have an obligation to all their patrons. It is common and accepted practice to restrict ANYONE with an open sore or an infectious disease from swimming in a public pool. Innocent children are required to sit-out of activities all the time because of medical conditions, out of concern for their own health and that of others. The park owners made a common-sense decision to ask for a note. They didn't deny entry altogether ... they just wanted to know more information, which the parents should have understood and been willing to provide. Sensitivity is great, but medical reality cannot be set aside. We have rights to be treated with kindness and fairness. We don't have a right to participate in anything we wish, or expect others to take risks with uninformed consent. AIDS/HIV advocates rightly call for greater education and information. The ones preventing information in this situation were the parents, who interpreted a request for information (a doctor's note) as a slap in the face, and refused. They need to get over themselves, act like adults, and share what they know. If they turn every question into a crusade, they are part of the ignorance problem, not the solution, and are setting their son up for far more trouble and discomfort than he deserves. But the way they handled this, from check-in to check-out, indicates they wanted a media circus from the beginning, and were determined to generate an incident one way or another.
Originally Posted By Shooba Why do the parents have to prove that their child poses no risk to others? Why no similar requirement for the park owner? If you're going to deny someone access to a pool, get a doctor's note saying why it's justified. And don't they have access to the internet? Can't the pool owners phone a health clinic? It shouldn't be that hard for them to learn a few basics about HIV transmission. Making the parents get a doctor's note could be inconvenient and humiliating, just because some ignorant person knows nothing about HIV. And why doesn't someone who owns or runs a public pool have some basic knowledge about the health risks involved?
Originally Posted By barboy "Do pool chemicals eliminate HIV?" Yes. Unlike hepatitis which can "live" outside of a biological host such as a coffee table, clothing, eating utensil or contertop for many, many days, HIV will "die" very fast within minutes or seconds outside of its natural habitat(blood). If HIV is exposed to a hostile environment like treated swimming pool water HIV will "die" instantaneously or close to it.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<I think what probably happened is that the dentist decided that his patients were now used to the masks and gloves, and since you never know what might be coming next >>> I am reading and re-reading this post...I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no need for a dentist to wear gloves and masks. It wasn't HIV that prompted gloves and masks in dentistry. That may have been the time some of the old timer's still practiced "wet finger" dentistry and finally converted due to professional and public pressure, but simple things like Hepatitis can be contracted far far far easier than HIV. The gloves and masks are as much of a protection FROM the dentist as they are TO the dentist. Would you want bare fingers in your mouth after they had been in the mouth of some dude in the next room who was Hep positive and had a raging outbreak of oral herpes (which by the way is the SAME virus as genital herpes) ? Or maybe that Staff infection on the other guys lip doesn't matter either. I'm a good sport about drinking after someone with strep throat, so who needs gloves? Just stop and think how much the safe factor increases from A) Washing hands between patients and B) Strip off the dirty gloves, wash hands, put on a brand new, sterile pair. I have a family back ground in the industry, which really doesn't mean that I know any more than the next guy but... it is intuitive that wearing gloves and masks have nothing to do with people being used to anything. It's all about good standard of care in the industry. I am 39 years old, have been going to the dentist since I was 8 or so. I have never had a dentist practice on me without gloves, but I know that for a breif time there were dentists in the early 80's that did, or so I am told.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad And as for getting pregnant in a pool... What about a really big lake? My first son was conceived in Devil's Lake, North Dakota...no kidding. Now that's saying something...not sure what...but something LOL
