Stirring the pot - AIDS in schools

Okay, so now that I have asked about honesty in government and nuclear weapons, let's ask one that might be touchy.

Should a child with AIDS be allowed to go to public school? Should there be a database of AIDS patients that the public has access to? What about other communicable diseases? What about at your workplace or gym?

At what point does the imaginary 'right to privacy' have to give way to public safety? Or is this even an issue of public safety? Is this a matter of fear-mongering (if that's a word)?

I'll open the floor...

I don''t think it''s an issue of public safety. I have no problem with the administration being informed, in case of an accident, but I think that should be treated with confidentiality. I don''t agree with a public database.

Definately fear-mongering, intrusions like the ones you painted are IMO very severe cases of discrimination. It''s not even a public safety or health issue.

How are questions of public safety discrimination? Now mind you, I have had this conversation before, and given that in 25 years of tracking this disease, I don''t know of a single case being transmitted by a child within the school system. This is purely a theoretical exercise.

But at the same time, I know of a teacher in my county that had hepatitis and worked with special ed kids. There was a very high risk of transference. If you don''t know, Hepatitis A is transmitted by fecal-oral contact. Something touches excrement and then is put into the mouth. So this teacher, who had to wipe these children, and feed them put these kids at a very high risk. And the school system was powerless to send her home, because it was ''discrimination'' and she was ''disabled''.

I want to know at what point is the health and welfare of others takes precedence. When did we stop treating diseases like diseases and start treating them like they gave the person with the disease some form of entitlement.

When did the standard practice of testing, reporting, tracing and notifying as a form of disease control become the wrong thing to do? If my child is at risk of catching something that is life-threatening, why shouldn''t I be given the right to make a decision about whether I want to put my child in harm''s way?

How can you treat or contain a disease if you decline to acknowledge who is infected?

""I want to know at what point is the health and welfare of others takes precedence.""
Well, don''t stop at AIDS. Go for syphilis, gonorrhea and the rest.

You''re right Mex. I only singled out AIDS because it is ultimately fatal. Also, it is contagious through means other than sexual contact (small percentage, but still possible), unlike gonorrhea or other STDs. But feel free to talk about tuberculosis, whooping cough, SARS, or anything else that is life-threatening and communicable as a part of the discussion.

I also read a report that states the Human Papilloma Virus is transferrable through plain contact, no sex needed. It''s a smaller chance, but possible.

I don''t know if it''s wrong, but I would agree with some sort of system that warned you. A few of my friends have suffered sickness because of relations with people who were not at all honest about the diseases they had (even tho they knew they had them).

Of course I wonder if there is another solution. But it''s almost shameful that knowing all we know about these new diseases, we still can''t control them. It''s like we''re still in the dark ages. I guess we''re dumb all over the world.

Speaking of which...
What is this? Aids can barely be controlled, and people go ""Oh well, it''s just aids... They can cure that now""? Where the hell is the responsibility?