Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
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.
Threaded Mode
