Should the ban on HIV health staff be overturned?
Hugh Jboobs
Posts: 15,316
Forum Member
✭✭
Link here.
From the article:
Personally, I think the ban should be overturned. Surely it's a form of discrimination the way things stand? And since the risk of a health worker transmitting it to a patient is so infinitely small, I don't think that argument against overturning the ban is a valid one.
What are your thoughts?
From the article:
HIV-positive health workers are not allowed to carry out invasive surgery or ‘exposure prone procedures’ that could risk blood contamination under Department of Health rules.
But a review has been announced, with Aids charities invited on to the working group that could draw up new guidelines in the next few months.
British policy is stricter than in many European countries plus the US and Australia, where dentists with HIV can work.
Personally, I think the ban should be overturned. Surely it's a form of discrimination the way things stand? And since the risk of a health worker transmitting it to a patient is so infinitely small, I don't think that argument against overturning the ban is a valid one.
What are your thoughts?
0
Comments
I mean, if there are hundreds of qualified surgeons working as bin-men because they're not allowed to do surgery AND there's a low statistical likelihood of them ever passing on the infection then maybe consider it.
If, however, there's only a handful of people who this problem affects then, harsh as it might be, I don't think there's a big enough benefit to justify the additional risk.
Is Britain actually short of people to do this work?
*EDIT*
Question for you...
What would you say if you were in hospital and were told "Your doctor has HIV and if he cuts himself with the scalpel during your operation you're going to get HIV too. Are you okay with that?"
I must say, although I don't think I'd be concerned about working in an office, or whatever, with a HIV carrier I have to say that I, personally, wouldn't want a surgeon with HIV operating on me.
No matter how small the risk is.
I had a relationship with an HIV+ man before my partner, and I don't have HIV. I am sure we were far more intimate with eachother than an HIV+ dentist or GP would be with me!
Discriminating against what? I wouldn't want someone with advanced Parkinson's to the stage of badly shaking hands performing brain surgery on me, would you view that the same?
Given HIV can affect anyone regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation I don't think there is a discrimination case here. It is a highly dangerous virus and there is no reason to expose anyone to more risk than is absolutely necessary.
Simply not true! For example, the chances of percutaneous transmission (e.g a contaminated needle used) is 0.3% without post exposure prophylaxis (PEP), the chances of transmission with mucous-membrane exposure (e.g. swallowing blood) is just 0.09% without PEP.
PEP can be administered up until 72 hours after exposure (sooner the better), and reduces the chances of seroconversion (in this example becoming HIV+) by 81%. (i.e. percutaneous drops to 0.05% and mucous-membrane exposure falls to 0.01%
Dealing purely with operating theatre here:
Chances of cutting yourself/a colleague in an operation ranges from 1.0% up to 15.0% depending on job role. Many of these injuries are sustained due to poor practice by the staff member, often during the disposal of used instruments.
Remember, that just because somebody injures themself/another person does not increase the risk of transmission. The chance of a surgeon cutting themselves/someone else in such a way that transmission is possible, is extremely low!
For example, a theatre nurse or technician could injure themself when preparing the instruments for use, they would then dispose of them, and the preparation procedure would be started again.
Injuries outside of surgical situations are much lower again, the theatre is a stressful environment, and mistakes are more likely to be made. Also, there is generally a lower risk associated with non-invasive procedures. (e.g. you're not going to transmit anything by changing a dressing, cleaning/changin catheter, giving out meds etc), as long as correct procedures are followed.
Even the taking/giving of fluids, venous cannulation etc is perfectly safe when the appropriate PPE is used and procedures are followed (i.e. if you're going to cannulate someone, and you stick the cannula (needle portion) in yourself whilst preparing it, you don't then stick it in the patient!)
The risks involved are so low, that I do not see any reason why an HIV+ person cannot be involved.
Hepatitis B however is another ball-game altogether and has much higher rates of transmission!
also i am sure there are many many undiagnosed people working in helthcare also
i know an amazing ITU nurse who now isnt allowed to work in ITU cause hes HIV, even though the chances of him doing anything invasive are zero
we (medical staff) are the ones most at risk to be honest from patients but never mind
i have had to have PEP three times - being needlesticked by patients who were trying to avoid being injected when psychotic
Even if there is a theoretical risk of transmission from health care workers to patients, it's incredibly small. You may as well worry about other sorts of freak accidents.
And bear in mind that you can never be certain that someone isn't HIV positive, so you would always have to assume that a risk exists.
Sorry but that is a very silly comparison. Parkinson's causes a physical disability, so of course it would render a brain surgeon unable to do their job. A HIV positive brain surgeon is still able to physically do their job and do it well.
A lot of people who have commented so far have made some incorrect assumptions about the actual risks of being treated by a clinician with HIV.
Does it make a difference to you who the person is? Would you be comfortable with a nurse but not a surgeon treating you? A dentist?
If you were being treated by a dentist in the US or Australia, would you be concerned that they may have HIV, since HIV positive dentists aren't banned there?
It was frightening as there was a picture of her and she looked so thin and ill.
I have never forgotten that article in my magazine. Sadly someone I knew lost their life to this terrible illness.
But no personally I think its wrong for doctors nurses and dentists to work on patients when they have HIV.
The risk is so small its pointless.
Sorry I don't agree. Any risk no matter how small is not pointless when innocent people lives are at stake.
Out of interest can you remember what equipment? HIV cant be passed through salivia so that story seems quite odd, unless we're talking about needles then nevermind:)
But a nurse changing a bandage is hardly going to give you anything and you don't know if the person giving you a op has any number of blood born diseases like syphilis, herpes, hep c, anything much more common, so why HIV?
There is always a risk in life when you wake in the morning, this just seems like people frightened of perceived risks, look at the countries where this is not a issue and see what the cross infection rate is. I bet its Zero.