Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum
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?
|
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.
Threaded Mode
