Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
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.
|
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.
Threaded Mode
