HIV+ Toddler Banned from Pool
 

see here

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3356281

you know, people need to be less concerned with the people they KNOW have diseases, and worry more about the people running around with diseases that they DONT know anything about.

how sad! it is just the beginning of a long road that this child will have to deal with. he was fortunate enough for someone to take him in. now this...

i wonder if they could win a law suit? they didnt have to disclose that info (i am assuming) but they did anyway...i think it was very courteous of them.

If you read the story, you'll notice that the park owner's position was "bring us a letter from the health department or your doctor letting us know this is okay."

While it is a shame that he wasn't better informed, it's not the same as a ban saying you are HIV positive, so you can't swim here.

This seems to be a case of rather than addressing the subtler issue of how HIV/AIDS education hasn't come as far as maybe some people would want it to, a story about discrimination against a child is a better story.

(I also want to add that I think the parents in the story are amazing and inspirational. To take in foster kids is great; to take in HIV positive foster kids even better; and to seek to give a kid a home forever is most impressive of all.)

I think HIV positive people have far fewer non-discrimination rights* than maybe sometimes they think they do*, and it might be a valuable lesson that keeping information private is often going to be the best course of action. If the real risk is low enough that other people are required to submit to, like sharing a public pool or shower, why tell them when no action should be required on their part anyway? And if it's a situation where you don't expose them to any real risk but they can choose to ban you, why disclose something that isn't their business.

(Obviously, I don't think that HIV people can withhold their status from people who assume a risk though contact with them: sexual partners, health care professions who are dealing with their blood, whoever else the law or basic decency would require you to tell. But in other cases where I don't expect to come in contact with your bodily fluids AND I have no control over whether or not to be around you, why tell me and plant that seed of fear in my mind?)

* And I was completely wrong in thinking that. But I still hold that it's be wiser to withhold your status from people who didn't have need to know or a right to refuse you service because I believe it will make your life easier.

It was a swimming pool in an RV park--probably not the most enlightened characters around.

Agreed, and that's part of why I think the distinction about asking for the letter might have more validity than it would someplace where people would probably know it was low/no risk, but used it to keep the kid out of the water.

Oh the irony...

The Chlorine KILLS HIV... That is 20 year old data. The baby poopin' all over the place is probably on all kinna meds still is cleaner before and after the Chlorine wash killing the HIV... Moreover, I would be worried about all the Chlorine affecting the baby!!!

And Onetime...

I agree. Folks need to be worried about the folks who don't know that they are infected with ANYTHING than who has a confirmed disease.

There are people OUT THERE ASYMPTOMATIC that have diseases WORSE than HIV... :eek:

I think that's why we promote the idea of universal precautions rather than only precautions with known status right?

I think I'm going to regret asking this, but what do you have in mind as worse diseases?

You mean like something more easily communicable or like how long hepatitis can live outside the body vs. HIV or like drug resistant TB jackasses on airplanes? You have introduced the idea that I need to get phobic about more things. What are they?

Azzwipes that live in denial after the CDC medical doctors TOLD him point blank and now folks in France have +TB tests... The treatments isn't a joke either. They are not pills. They are INJECTIONS!!!

There is the Norovirus--Norwalk on the ships. They STILL DO NOT KNOW HOW THESE THINGS GET COMMUNICABLE!!!

And all the crap that is getting "genetically engineered" these days... Well, I know people too... And some of them DO illegal activities. A few of THEM showed up to my class ONE DAY in 1998... I was teaching the BIO101 that teaches folks how to grow Escherichia coli. At this point, it is semantics how these things get grown...

Not to be all conpiratory: But do you REALLY THINK that the Spinach contamination of last year and the Current Botulism contamination this year is REALLY ALL THAT MUCH OF AN ACCIDENT? Like, OOPS? My bad!

There is some crap out there now, I think the Russians are encountering it, that the ONLY WAY to remove the infestation is by 18,0000 degrees and rising...

What can you do? Not much but keep yourself healthy. Learn basic survival tactics and CPR. Emergency prepare yourself. Get I2 pills for water. Know some basic wound maintenence care. Combined, I think my husband and I will live a week with drinkable water until help arrives--if...

These diseases travel with animals including humans and bugs. They can be tropical or not. You just have to know how to protect yourself...

When i'm on my vacation I'll have easy access to a doctor's note for my hypothetical HIV+ kid.

You know the more I think about it, your sarcastic statement would actually be the truth. If either of us really had an HIV positive kid, you or I would travel with all kinds of information and contact info for our doctors (or the doctors the kid saw through the state medical system for foster kids), and we'd also know not to tell people stuff who didn't really need to know it because we know that many people are jerks and we'd be setting the kid up for trouble. The fact that they thought it would be no big deal is a further indication of how saintlike these folks are. (Seriously!)

And as far as the RV-park-running-redneck guy goes, getting word from the health department might put his mind at ease. I don't think that he expected it to cost anything. He specifically mentions the public health department in the article.

If you were hypothetically ill informed and ran a pool, which side would you err on: inconveniencing one family or contaminating your pool? Is the burden* on you to allow someone to swim IN YOUR POOL* until you have proof they are unsafe*?

Here's the quote: "'We weren't sure if somebody could get the virus if the child upchucked on them or from blood or what," said Ken Zadnichek, the park's owner. "We didn't know what the risk was. That's why we asked for something from their doctor or the county health department.'

Dick Glover said the request for a doctor's note made it clear Caleb was unwelcome."

Does that sound like a ban to you the way people usually use the worded ban?

*as it turns out, with HIV, yes you do if your pool is generally open to the public. The burden for knowing what you have to permit will rest with you.

It is unreasonable to make any kid, even one with a disease, carry proof that they can go to public areas. Contact information, emergency information, prescription information is NOT the same thing. Along with my note to go to the pool, I need a note to eat in a public place, one to use the same restrooms (what if I PUKE!), one to walk on the beach, one to walk down a public street (where I could easily trip and scrape my knee). It's stupid.

The rules for taking care of biohazards (HIV+ or not) in a public pool area are sufficient to protect people from HIV. If the kid puked, you would treat it the same as if ANY kid puked. If I was "hypothetically ill informed" I would be a moron. If I ran a pool I'd know these things.

They're adopting (or have now adopted) this kid. They know what is reasonable. (Which suggests that carrying a doctor's note for the pool is NOT).

Yes, it sounds like my kid's (hypothetical) presence wouldn't be welcome there. If they're concerned about it, they can call the health department. Refusing service based on HIV status is just wrong.

I know this is a crazy hypothetical, but what if they took the kid to the beach that had sharks? Would the sharks know of the HIV status or care? ;)

But that's how my sick and twisted mind works...

I doubt it, because aside from the fact the kid is ~2 years old, the buffer capacity and osmolarity as well as osmolality of sea water would not allow the virus to live that long in that kind of environment...

If the HIV+ person had weeping bloodied wounds, the sharks would taste it, but probably would not eat it because it is thought they can detect these kinds of things. Moreover, sharks have a very different immune system than mammals, they do not make antibodies like mammals do.

And shark behavior is fundamentally a different kind of social system from what is identifiable. Why is this important? Because sharks have evolved and lived on Earth for millions of years. It makes it relevant in understanding how these animals live for so long can give us humans an inkling as to how we can live as long...

I dunno: swimming and summer always makes me think of La Jolla Shores or Windansea, California...

The fact that the trailer park owner actually said "upchucked" :p

The ban on the pool seems silly to me- Mr. Zadnichek needs to be better informed about how HIV is spread. What I don't get at all is the ban on the showers. The child wasn't going to be in the shower with lots of other people, so even if he did "upchuck", they would be able to clean the shower before anyone else would use it (I would hope that it would be disinfected no matter who was the "upchucker").

Simply stated, This makes me sick!

the HIV epidemic began more than 20 years ago and anyone who has not been living in a cave for the last 10 years knows the risk.

To Mr. RV Park owner- Go crawl back into your cave and don't come out until you have a doctor's note excusing your stupidity.

2 comments on that... I get really concerned as it seems every other month we hear that a portion of our food supply is contaminated and I keep saying this isn't an accident, this is bilogical warfare

The other thing is a science experiment I had in microbiology when I was ajunior in high school...my teacher, just to show how unclean certain things was had as take an incubation dish and get samples from different parts of the schhol...and then shake ur hands with 5 people......well one of the people we all shook hands with, he always had sweaty palms and wasn't known to be the best hygienic person around.... imagine our surprise and disgust when 4 days later 5 of those incubation dishes turned up with fruit fly larvae.....if that doesn't teach you to wash ur hands...i don't know what will

Was he truly in a public place the same way he would be in the things that you listed?

You'd think anyone running a pool would know how do deal with anyone's bodily fluids safely, but it doesn't appear that this guy did.

I don't want to see the kid get banned from doing anything, and I'd like to think that everyone is informed and reasonable about HIV, but it's not always the case.

Telling strangers that the kid is HIV positive is probably not a good strategy if you want him to face as little discrimination as possible, whether you or I want that to be true or not. So I'm not as convinced as you are that they do know what's reasonable.

Again, I don't want to see this kid restricted from doing anything. But he has a deadly blood-born disease, and if you insist on telling people that, don't be surprised when they want to reassured that he's not a risk to them before they let him do stuff. Yes, it'd be better world if everyone equally carried the burden of being knowledgeable about HIV transmission and safety, but they don't. And if it's your kid with the disease, you'd be better off not always counting on rednecks being well-informed and sensitive about things they don't understand. (I'm not saying the parents are more at fault for what happened as much as I'm trying to say that it wasn't totally reasonable to do what they did. They were wildly optimistic about other people's knowledge and good will.)

(Does anyone know if by law the RV park pool owner has to let him swim? Is HIV a kind of protected status* in Alabama that would guarantee you the right not to be discriminated against legally?* Ethically and morally, I'll go along with those of you who think he should be free to swim there, but is he entitled to legally since it's not a publicly owned facility?)
*The answer is yes; it's treat as a disability.

He can swim in greg louganis' pool.

-Rudey

His inability to deal with bodily fluids is his own error that needs correcting. He should not be running a pool if he doesn't know what to do when a kid pees in it or cuts himself. He has no idea if Little Jimmy in the pool has HIV or Hepititis or the bubonic plague, he needs to treat every kid's blood as if it were HIV+. This being the case, it shouldn't be a problem for an HIV+ kid to be in the pool.
A restaurant is a comparable public/private area. It is private property but public space, as is a restroom in a store or restaurant. Requiring kids/parents to carry "notes" is stupid. While a person may have the right to refuse to serve you, you have the right to go to court and/or the media and complain. Public opinion and/or the court will decide who was right.

So you don't know about it legally either?

I agree with you that being required to carry notes would be stupid. But carrying information to provide to people might also be easier because so far we haven't managed to get rid of all the stupid people.

I agree with you about the pool owner and universal precautions. It's a little scary to think about how he cleans up usually.

They are trying it in the court of public opinion and I think they'll win with people who aren't using that pool.

But I still don't think what that guy did amounts to a ban.

And I still think the parents will likely face more unnecessary uphill struggles if they announce the kid's HIV status to people who don't really need to know it.

Imagine in all the examples that you gave earlier, the person is shouting out, "I have HIV." "Hey, waitress thanks for bring me silverware; I have HIV." "Hey is this seat on the bus taken?; I have HIV." "Can I use your bathroom; I have HIV?" Isn't the person unnecessarily setting himself or herself up for a lot of junk that could be avoided?

They didn't do that, they were chatting with another staff member about adopting their foster child. A desk clerk. At no time did anyone go yelling "I HAVE HIV."

A comparable situation would be if you're sitting at a restaurant table discussing lets say, your doctor's appointments or medications with your significant other, maybe the waitress comes up while you're doing so, makes conversation with you and then repeats what you said to or in the presence of a manager. Manager says, "I'm sorry, but we can't let you eat here or use the restroom without a doctor's note." Would you be like "yeah, it's kind of my own fault for talking about it. I should feel totally welcome here. They didn't really 'ban' me, they just made it clear I'm inherently unclean," or would you be pissed?

Chalk me up in category b.

HIV Q&A from ADA.gov
IANAL so I can't state it with 100% certainty but I believe this applies here. I don't know Alabama state law either or if they have a seperate disabilities act.

My impression was that the mother or father told a person involved with running the establishment, as opposed to talking it over with another guest.

I repeat again that I'm not a fan of discriminating against people with HIV; I just think that you and the parents are over-estimating the average person's level of information and willingness to make people with HIV truly feel welcome.

Sure the guy who ran the place should have known better.

I'll repeat this for what is probably the third time. One of them discussed it with a desk clerk. Not in a, HEY I HAVE HIV way like you were suggesting. Just chatting. It's not inconceivable you'd talk that way to a waitress too. Hence my example. if you were the person eating in that restaurant, what would you do?



And seeing how HIV is covered under the ADA, saying that people aren't willing to make those with HIV welcome doesn't matter. It's the legal equivalent of "I'm sorry Ms. Wheelchair but you can roll here unless you give me a doctor's note"

In hindsight, was it wise for the mother to have done that?

Would you do it if it had been you?

My point is not that it justifies the reaction that she got, just that she probably isn't going to get the reaction she expects or is entitled to in other situations either.

And I'm glad that she has legal protection in the ADA, but it only works if she's or someone else is willing to sue to enforce it. So it might be easier to quit having casual conversations with desk clerks and waitresses about the kid's HIV. As a culture, I don't think we're generally there, and as this case demonstrates, RV parks are Alabama are definitely not.

(People do become concerned and need reassurance about the risk to themselves and others when they find themselves meeting or working around the first person they know has HIV. You or I might google it up if we had questions; other people might want to hear it from the health department. It might be unreasonable (and illegal) for them to expect the mom to provide it for them, but their wanting reassurance is not in fact exceptional when for the first time they are aware of, it's not a completely "what if" situation.

Whether she wants to or not, she's going to spend a lot of time educating people from here on out if she chooses to reveal the kid's status. It's either going to be about how there's no risk to others or about her legal rights. But I'd be really surprised if this is the last time it ever comes up.

Personally, I'd start carrying formation about risk and universal precautions and about my kids legal rights. Should she have to? no. Will her life be easier if she does? probably.

I hope you are right, but she's still going to need to have a plan to enforce it. I don't think you can call 911 with an ADA complaint, but I may be wrong. She has to function is the world she actually lives in and with the idiots in it. It's nice to know that she has the law on her side, but I don't think it will change her day to day experience much.

Personally, I wouldn't chat up waitresses or death clerks about my or my child's health issues. I particularly wouldn't do it if the issue were HIV/AIDS. It freaks people out whether you want it to or not.


ETA: you may have already seen this but here's a link to a letter that the ACLU sent the park. It backs up your point and it makes clear that the RV is a public accommodation, which was one of the things I was wondering about. So you're completely correct about the legal issues and there application in Alabama. It'd be nice to think that the publicity about this case will inform others, but who would have thought it would have been necessary in 2007 either?

http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upl...e499_30571.pdf