HIV+ Toddler Banned from Pool

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

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.

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

[UGAalum94]

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.

[Drolefille]

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.

[AKA_Monet]

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...

[UGAalum94]

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.

[Rudey]

He can swim in greg louganis' pool.

-Rudey

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

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?)

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.

[UGAalum94]

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?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

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

Q: Are people with HIV or AIDS protected by the ADA?

A: Yes. An individual is considered to have a "disability"
if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a
record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an
impairment. Persons with HIV disease, both symptomatic and
asymptomatic, have physical impairments that substantially limit
one or more major life activities and are, therefore, protected
by the law.

Persons who are discriminated against because they are regarded
as being HIV-positive are also protected. For example, a person
who was fired on the basis of a rumor that he had AIDS, even if
he did not, would be protected by the law.

Moreover, the ADA protects persons who are discriminated against
because they have a known association or relationship with an
individual who is HIV-positive. For example, the ADA would
protect an HIV-negative woman who was denied a job because her
roommate had AIDS.

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.

[ForeverRoses]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

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.'

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

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").

[AlwaysSAI]

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.