|
|
| Should Health Care Proffessional be tested for AIDS? |
| Yes |
|
80% |
[ 25 ] |
| No |
|
9% |
[ 3 ] |
| Not Sure |
|
9% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:18 pm
I've put alot of thought in to this. I'm studing to become a Dental Assistantand wonder if there should be Mandatory AIDS test for people in high resk health poffesions. Like Dentistry, surgons, surgical nurse, and any other health care poffession that comes into contact with blood. Let's think about it for a minute. Say a Dental Assitant has AIDS and accidentally pricks his/her finger and some blood drops in the patient's mouth. That paitent would be at risk of getting AIDS. Now that is very unlikely but it can happen.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:13 pm
Are they at risk from simple blood-to-skin or blood-to-membrane contact? I suppose it's possible since it is usually transmitted sexually (and I think somewhere in there it implies a fliud-to-membrane transmission of HIV.) I'm aware of the blood-to-blood risk (which in the real world usually manifests from shared needles), but that doesn't seem to be as likely.
But, another important question is... if there is mandatory AIDS screening, what should happen when there's a positive result? Should the person be unable to work in those industries? Should people simply be made aware that this individual has AIDS? (I imagine it'd be legally questionable to do that last suggestion since that seems like it'd violate some sort of medical privacy law.)
It's most definitely an interesting question. I'm split... I've simply got no clue...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:21 pm
Blood-to-membrane contact poses more of a risk then blood-skin. The only way I can see it getting through the skin is if you have broken skin like a cut or rash.
I think the best goal would be that the indviuals in those Health Care proffesions that deal mucos membranes were aware that they had AIDS so that speical precautions were taken. That would be the best thing to hope for. There are many legal rammifcations if the privete companies decided to ban certian people from certian jobs because of AIDS status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:52 pm
Well, it does make things a lot safer for patients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:37 pm
I am sure many people in the Health Care Proffession would enjoy being tested ever so often as long as they knew they could keep their jobs and their status would not be leaked out to the genral public.
I will aslo point out there is little risk of getting AIDS from a patient from a procedre and vice versa. It would just be an added saftey mesure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:19 am
i agree. i think they should. but maybe not for dentisty wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:57 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:37 am
dont doctors have any kind of medical exam before they start working?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:28 am
Of course they should, or else all the preaching they do to try and stop it spreading is for nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:55 pm
I don't know, I think there are several problems with that plan.
First: The likelyhood of that happening is so small that it wouldn't be worth the cost of having the test.
Second: Isn't the test expensive? I don't know, but would you pay for it out of government money? Would it be deducted from doctor slalries? Neither one sounds like a good option for me, because you would either end up with monster taxes or no doctors. Well, that's a bit extreme, but you get my point.
Third: You couldn't just do the test once and be done with it, because of two factors--A) There is a period of about 6 months (I think...maybe three...I don't remember) when you can have the HIV virus, and pass it on, but it doesn't show up on tests, so everyone would have to be tested twice, and B) People do stupid things, and can get exposed to HIV after the test.
And finally: If you're going to make HIV/AIDS testing mandatory for medical professionals to keep them from making stupid mistakes and infecting people, you might as well just test everyone. THAT would take some major money.
Oh, no, that wasn't it, I thought of one more. What are you going to do with the doctors who test positive? Fire them? Send them to live with monkeys in Brazil? Put them in special AIDS colonies? Give them a slap on the wrist and say "No more needles for you"? And yes, it has to be fluid to fluid or fluid to permeable/semipermeable membrane contact to pass it on. Actually I'm not sure about the membrane bit, but it has to be ingested or put into the bloodstream somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:07 pm
I think it should...spit, blood and other bodiley fluids getting in the other persons system will give them AIDand thats not good...there sould be tests for most of the more dangerous communicable things
-Kacy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:15 pm
Why? People are just going to get these diseases anyways. Testing doctors will MAYBE eliminate one minor source. I mean, you might as well say that people can't ride the subway or the bus without getting somesort of disease testing. There are so many precautions in the medical field already that it's highly unlikely--if not virtually impossible--to get sick from going to the doctors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
