Should People With Infectious Diseases Be Allowed in EMS?

[Just Plain Ruff]

I have read alot of the posts in this topic' date=' and I have to say, I am surprised at some of the responses. Discrimination is not limited to race or sex or religious beliefs, it is also discriminative to exclude a person from their constitutional right to seek whatever career makes them happy just because they had or have a disease. Right now, if a person has committed and was convicted of a felony, in most cased they are automatically disqualified from applying for a job with Fire or EMS, that was their choice to commit that crime, Now, people don't always contract a disease like the afore mentioned from illicit drug activity or unprotected intercourse, there are plenty of babies born with those types of diseases every day, and some are purely and simply accidental, so should those people have lesser rights than the rest of us? Absolutely not. Compassion for others and the ability to put yourself in the shoes of others, who are by no choice of their own less fortunate than you, should be a part of all of "us" who joined the Fire and EMS service to help others, now do I want to be worked on by a person with HIV or AIDS or any other contractible life altering disease? Not really, but who's to say I haven't been already? and who's to say it should be illegal? My opinion is that we as a society, should not let our fear allow us to discriminate against other less fortunate people, all in all we are ALL God's creation, brothers and sisters who are called to "love one another"[/quote']

quote="UtProsim"]

[Dustdevil]

Wow, LS! I am impressed at how accurately you summed up my position. Nice job! I am also disappointed that my position isn't equally obvious to others. LS is spot on. My focus is on the patient, and his rights, not the provider. Somehow I have managed to remain in medicine for over three decades without letting it become all about me. It amazes me that there are so many with less than ten percent of that time in the field who are not patient centred.

Ok. So here you're saying that only people with a poor understanding of microbiology would even question the issues being raised here, and that to debate the issue is silly. Therefore, it is cut and dry. And you're also inferring that someone who's taken microbiology who disagrees is also silly.... see how tricky language is?

This is a good example of what happens when you take quotes from multiple posts and try to piece them together into something greater. You lose context, and consequently lose the true meaning. To put that quote into context, and understand the meaning, you have to know what it was in response to. And it was very specifically a response to the claim that we can not deny anybody healthcare employment based upon their health status. It was not a statement of my personal feelings. It was a statement of biological fact and legal precedent. And the point was that anybody who has taken microbiology knows all about Typhoid Mary, TB, and Pneumonic Plague.

Ok... so what did I misread?

Pretty much everything. But you didn't so much misread it as you misread into it.

Dwayne's conclusion was pretty much spot on. Besides that of patient rights, I am not arguing any overall concepts here. I am debating specific points within the overall concept for the sake of accuracy. Trying to keep us more focused upon black and white realities than on the "feelings" of those who think their inalienable "right" to an EMS job is more important than their patients.

I am not taking sides. But the facts clearly are.

[Eydawn]

The patient always has the right to choose his or her HCP (unless they are unconscious or otherwise altered) and what I fail to see is how a HCW having HIV infringes upon the patient's right of choice. There are many laypersons who do not understand infectious disease *at all* let alone HIV or Hepatitis.

My position, based upon the solid figures that VentMedic supplied, is this: the patient is benefitted the most by having access to the most intelligent, most educated, ethical and compassionate provider possible. What is being pushed as the correct position is that a provider who meets the above requirements only does so if they are not infected with HIV. I disagree!

There are many things that people find "awful" and "scary" when it comes to other human beings. Satanic worship, mormonism (no offense!), homosexuality... the list goes on. Should a homosexual male nurse disclose his sexuality to a patient because he is in a higher risk category for contracting HIV, so that his patient may decide if he is totally comfortable with this provider?

I for one am much more worried about maintaining the cleanliness of our blood supply and medical instruments in terms of disease transmission. I'm much more concerned about the HCW who indavertently gets TB without realizing it.

I've looked at the numbers... and it looks to me that the risk is so astronomically small, that I can't understand why people are stating that it is to the patient's benefit to keep HIV+ or non-infectious Hep+ providers out of the field. It looks like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me!

I am all for giving the patients the best possible care and taking care of their psychological and emotional needs while doing so, especially when it comes to long-term care. I do not think that stigmatizing those individuals with HIV and barring them from practice achieves that aim.

I see what Lone got out of your statements, Dust, and yes pulling snippets out of context will often remove some of the associated interpretation. But it is human nature to look beyond the printed word to see what is behind, and I still disagree with your statement that you haven't taken a stand. Your statement that the facts have taken a clear stand... see what I mean?

Wendy

CO EMT-B

[Dustdevil]

...I still disagree with your statement that you haven't taken a stand. Your statement that the facts have taken a clear stand... see what I mean?

No, I have not taken a stand. The facts have taken a stand. You're blaming the messenger.

[Lone Star]

[Just Plain Ruff]

Lone, you know I didn't know that there was a constitutional right to do what makes me happy or a constitutional right to work wherever I want to.

It's amazing how much people don't know about the constitution.

Some people even say there is a constitutional right to vote. NOPE NOT There.

[Dustdevil]

As a cop, my favourite was prisoners' assertion that they had a constitutional right to a phone call. As if Alexander Graham Bell signed the Constitution.

[Lone Star]

Lone, you know I didn't know that there was a constitutional right to do what makes me happy or a constitutional right to work wherever I want to.

It's amazing how much people don't know about the constitution.

Some people even say there is a constitutional right to vote. NOPE NOT There.

Acutally the 19th Amendment to the Bill of Rights guarantees women the right to vote....here's the exact lanugage:

Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Could this be where that comes from?

Even if it IS a guaranteed right to vote, it is one that is stripped from you once you become a convicted felon......did you know that?

LS

[Just Plain Ruff]

the only constitutional right to vote is in that amendment.

There is a constitutional right to vote in a state election but that was what the founders envisioned. They did not envision that they would be elected by the people. If you remember right, the framers of the constitution were elected or appointed by the states to represent them in the federal government. They never envisioned that there would be national elections except in the term of president.

Senators and the house were appointed originally by the states but that quickly turned to being elected by the citizens(of which a very narrow list of requirements to vote were - male).

But I digress, I could go on and on.

For a really great history lesson, I urge everyone to watch the new HBO miniseries John Adams

Here is one more thing

quote direct from the constitution

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector

Doesn't this make the superdelegates unconstitional?

[JPINFV]

Even if it IS a guaranteed right to vote, it is one that is stripped from you once you become a convicted felon......did you know that?

LS

Depends on the state.

[hr:90b874620e]

quote direct from the constitution

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector

Doesn't this make the superdelegates unconstitional?

No, it's two separate issues. Super delegates do not choose a president, they choose a presidential candidate. The founding fathers were pretty much set against political parties as well. Unfortunately with most state governments failing at understanding proportions, most states select their electoral college electors using a winner take all system from the state election. Since there is no prize for second or third place in most states, the election will always move towards a 2 candidate/party system.