Should the ban on HIV health staff be overturned?

Hugh JboobsHugh Jboobs Posts: 15,316
Forum Member
✭✭
Link here.

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?
«13456

Comments

  • Si_CreweSi_Crewe Posts: 40,202
    Forum Member
    I guess it's the sort of thing that should be considered but risk-assessed properly.

    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. :(
  • iiHEARTy0uiiHEARTy0u Posts: 13,737
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I dont think we should pander to people with HIV by allowing them to do things that may contaminate another person.

    No matter how small the risk is.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,187
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The likely hood of them giving you it through a mishap is so small that really they should be allowed, you look at the data from other countries that allow it and see the rate of infection, I bet its either zero or tiny in comparison to the lives they save.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Only if they have "bad Aids".
  • *Clem**Clem* Posts: 4,101
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No I don't think it should be overturned. They are a risk to the patients, even if it is a small risk that's still not acceptable IMO.
  • malpascmalpasc Posts: 9,626
    Forum Member
    If the risk is very small I don't see the problem.

    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!
  • valkayvalkay Posts: 15,726
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Definitely not, too risky, even if it is only a small risk.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,289
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I wouldn't even say it's a small risk - invasive surgery involves a lot of blood - all it takes is one tiny open cut on the surgeon and that person is infected.
  • -Sid--Sid- Posts: 29,365
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Not a chance worth taking. So the ruling should stay in place in my opinion.
  • CitySlickerCitySlicker Posts: 10,414
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Surely it's a form of discrimination the way things stand?

    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,983
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Can you imagine the uproar in anyone got infected? Terrible shame about the waste of skills though. I hope the ban extends to people with other blood borne diseases like Hepatitis though or it would be rather discriminatory.
  • LisaB599LisaB599 Posts: 2,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No I dont think it should be over turned, having witnessed many human errors in 8yrs of Nhs working the scope for something to happen here is huge, so no. The enhancement of the HIVS carrier/infected persons job prospects does not outweigh the risk to the life of patients.
  • KnifeEdgeKnifeEdge Posts: 3,919
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Maybe it should be overturned, but would patients be given the choice whether or not to be treated by an infected doctor/dentist?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,547
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BlueBell7 wrote: »
    I wouldn't even say it's a small risk - invasive surgery involves a lot of blood - all it takes is one tiny open cut on the surgeon and that person is infected.

    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!
  • shmiskshmisk Posts: 7,963
    Forum Member
    its not just surgeons

    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
  • davidmcndavidmcn Posts: 12,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm bemused at the people who think any risk must be avoided, no matter how small. Do they ever leave the house?

    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.
  • 21stCenturyBoy21stCenturyBoy Posts: 44,493
    Forum Member
    No, I wouldn't be comfortable being treated by someone with HIV.
  • Hugh JboobsHugh Jboobs Posts: 15,316
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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?

    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?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,522
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why change the rule? Why take the extra risk? If I had HIV I wouldn't expect to have such a job for obvious reasons, I think you are taking the discrimination thing too far, surely this is basic common sense?
  • WhisperingGhostWhisperingGhost Posts: 4,762
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No way. No matter how small the risk is it's still a risk and not one I would be comfortable having.
  • RetrospectiveRetrospective Posts: 3,133
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The first time I ever read about Aids was a magazine article in my Woman magazine. This was early 1985. It was about a young woman who had been to a dentist in America and the dentist had Aids and had been using the dental instruments in his own mouth and they ahdn't been sterilized afterwards. This young woman contrated Aids from this dentist.
    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,187
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The first time I ever read about Aids was a magazine article in my Woman magazine. This was early 1985. It was about a young woman who had been to a dentist in America and the dentist had Aids and had been using the dental instruments in his own mouth and they ahdn't been sterilized afterwards. This young woman contrated Aids from this dentist.
    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.
    Times have well moved on since then.
    The risk is so small its pointless.
  • RetrospectiveRetrospective Posts: 3,133
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Times have well moved on since then.
    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.
  • Flubber.Flubber. Posts: 2,262
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The first time I ever read about Aids was a magazine article in my Woman magazine. This was early 1985. It was about a young woman who had been to a dentist in America and the dentist had Aids and had been using the dental instruments in his own mouth and they ahdn't been sterilized afterwards. This young woman contrated Aids from this dentist.
    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.

    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:)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,187
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sorry I don't agree. Any risk no matter how small is not pointless when innocent people lives are at stake.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.