Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!skaron@eagle.wesleyan.edu
From: skaron@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: 60 Mins seg. (Dr. Day..)
Message-ID: <27611@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 1 Oct 89 20:01:26 GMT
References: <27503@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Lines: 62
Approved: aids@cs.ucla.edu
Archive-number: 1280

In article <27503@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, Tom.Mickus@f440.n250.z1.fidonet.org (
Tom Mickus) writes:
> 
>         Dr. Day (a woman), is chief of a surgical dept. in a San Francisco
> hospital.  Due to her perceived threat of receiving AIDs or the HIV virus
> while practicing surgery, she has decided to pack it in, and retreat to a
> safer working enviroment.  She is upset over the way the risk of infection
> among medical personnel is downplayed....
> 
>      She does raise some interesting points though, and ones that must be
> addressed and faced up to.  For example, she cites the fact that any incoming
> patient can be tested to see if they have any of the prevalent (or once
> prevalent) infectious diseases, everyone except for the AIDs or HIV virus.
> WHY IS THAT? 
   
>      Yes, there are legitimate fears over such information being abused, 
> and things such as job discrimination resulting, however we have to see
> that as a lesser evil to the one whereby ou healthcare workers may have a
> death sentence invoked upon them simply because they weren't alerted to the
> risks coming from a particular patient who was infected.  Let us not lose
> sight of what's happening.  We are dealing with a disease with no known cure
> (and few treatments) which in a short span of years, causes death.  We are
> also talking about a virus...which means when we speak of transmission, you
> can never say .. an action with an infected person is _100%_ safe.  However,
> neither should we act paranoid or irrational in face of this killer, but we
> musn't delude ourselves.  Facts are facts, and we have to own up to them,
> regardless of what kind of impact it may or may have on particular social
> groups.
> 
  
  I agree that these health workers are at risk when treating infected
patients. However, will the knowledge that they are treating infected patients
reduce their risk?  I believe it shouldn't.  Shouldn't these people be cautious
of their chance of contracting any disease no matter who they treat, infected
patient or not?  It bothers me to think that these workers (although doing a
nessecary and important job) would be more cautious about themselves in some
situations involving the entering of a human body than in other similar
situations.
  
   It seems that by giving health workers knowledge about hiv infected patients 
would result in Health workers, doctors and nurses not giving the same amount
of care that they would if these people were not infected. In the case of
doctors this leads to a breaking of their hippocratic oaths, and in the case of
the other health workers raises serious questions of their true intentions in
the field. If they are unsure of a patient then they should take all
precautions deemed neccesary, and not be thinking "Gee this person doesn't have
HIV therefore it's ok if I get pricked by a needle." 

   Yes there are risks but  Health professionals should not be in the field if
they are unwilling to take risks to help save other people (and no just because
people have HIV does not mean that their life is not worth improving due to the 
problem of giving it to health workers). It is my opinion that Dr. Day is not 
fufilling  her duties as a doctor if she is not willing to help someone that
may put her in some risk, and therefore bid her a fare goodbye from her
profession.

Any other comments would be listened to with an open mind.

                                        SKARON@eagle.wes.edu
                                    or  SKARON@wesleyan.bitnet

                                        (Steven L. Karon)