skaron@eagle.wesleyan.edu (10/02/89)
In article <27503@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, Tom.Mickus@f440.n250.z1.fidonet.org ( Tom Mickus) writes: > > Dr. Day (a woman), is chief of a surgical dept. in a San Francisco > hospital. Due to her perceived threat of receiving AIDs or the HIV virus > while practicing surgery, she has decided to pack it in, and retreat to a > safer working enviroment. She is upset over the way the risk of infection > among medical personnel is downplayed.... > > She does raise some interesting points though, and ones that must be > addressed and faced up to. For example, she cites the fact that any incoming > patient can be tested to see if they have any of the prevalent (or once > prevalent) infectious diseases, everyone except for the AIDs or HIV virus. > WHY IS THAT? > Yes, there are legitimate fears over such information being abused, > and things such as job discrimination resulting, however we have to see > that as a lesser evil to the one whereby ou healthcare workers may have a > death sentence invoked upon them simply because they weren't alerted to the > risks coming from a particular patient who was infected. Let us not lose > sight of what's happening. We are dealing with a disease with no known cure > (and few treatments) which in a short span of years, causes death. We are > also talking about a virus...which means when we speak of transmission, you > can never say .. an action with an infected person is _100%_ safe. However, > neither should we act paranoid or irrational in face of this killer, but we > musn't delude ourselves. Facts are facts, and we have to own up to them, > regardless of what kind of impact it may or may have on particular social > groups. > I agree that these health workers are at risk when treating infected patients. However, will the knowledge that they are treating infected patients reduce their risk? I believe it shouldn't. Shouldn't these people be cautious of their chance of contracting any disease no matter who they treat, infected patient or not? It bothers me to think that these workers (although doing a nessecary and important job) would be more cautious about themselves in some situations involving the entering of a human body than in other similar situations. It seems that by giving health workers knowledge about hiv infected patients would result in Health workers, doctors and nurses not giving the same amount of care that they would if these people were not infected. In the case of doctors this leads to a breaking of their hippocratic oaths, and in the case of the other health workers raises serious questions of their true intentions in the field. If they are unsure of a patient then they should take all precautions deemed neccesary, and not be thinking "Gee this person doesn't have HIV therefore it's ok if I get pricked by a needle." Yes there are risks but Health professionals should not be in the field if they are unwilling to take risks to help save other people (and no just because people have HIV does not mean that their life is not worth improving due to the problem of giving it to health workers). It is my opinion that Dr. Day is not fufilling her duties as a doctor if she is not willing to help someone that may put her in some risk, and therefore bid her a fare goodbye from her profession. Any other comments would be listened to with an open mind. SKARON@eagle.wes.edu or SKARON@wesleyan.bitnet (Steven L. Karon)
D. L. Reynolds DR9021@ UCSFVM (10/04/89)
Steven L. Karon writes <...It is my opinion that Dr. Day is not fufilling her duties as a doctor if she is not willing to help someone that may put her in some risk, and therefore bid her a fare goodbye from her profession.> Before blithely dismissing Dr. Day, you might consider this: Roughly 15 years ago the six-year-old son of a friend was severely injured in a car accident. His right foot was badly mangled and almost completely severed at the ankle. All the surgeons who examined the boy (named John) agreed that the foot would have to be amputated. Except Dr. Day. She thought she might be able to save the foot and labored mightily to that end. Ultimately, her efforts were an unqualified success. John walks without so much as a limp, and was even able to play soccer in high school. And just for the record, John and his mother were not "important" people. His mother was a single parent on welfare. Regardless of one's opinion of Dr. Day's position, she is an enormously talented and dedicated orthopaedic surgeon and her resignation is a very real loss.
skaron@eagle.wesleyan.edu (10/06/89)
In article <27686@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, D. L. Reynolds DR9021@ UCSFVM writes: > Steven L. Karon writes <...It is my opinion that Dr. Day is not > > > Before blithely dismissing Dr. Day, you might consider this: > Roughly 15 years ago the six-year-old son of a friend was > severely injured in a car accident. His right foot was badly > mangled and almost completely severed at the ankle. All the > surgeons who examined the boy (named John) agreed that the foot > would have to be amputated. Except Dr. Day. She thought she > might be able to save the foot and labored mightily to that > end. Ultimately, her efforts were an unqualified success. > John walks without so much as a limp, and was even able to play > soccer in high school. And just for the record, John and his > mother were not "important" people. His mother was a single parent > on welfare. > > Regardless of one's opinion of Dr. Day's position, she is an > enormously talented and dedicated orthopaedic surgeon and her > resignation is a very real loss. I'm sorry but you seem to take my point in the wrong way. I realize that Dr.Day is highly talented. But using your case (and I'm glad everything worked out as well as possible under the circumstances), and watching the segment, Dr. Day would make it seem that if the foot had to be amputated, then she would want to know if John had HIV before doing the procedure. I'm sorry but I can not sympathize with anyone of that position. Thanks for listening, and hopefully I explained my point with no further offense. On to further news: No Healthcare workers do not know the complete medical history on everyone they help. They basically get information that can help the patient recover faster. So my point is does knowing that a patient has HIV, help the Healthworker speed the recovery of the patient if that patient has open heart surgery (extreme example). I believe that as of right now it doesn't so there is no reason outside of the health workers personal reasons to know whether the patient has HIV or not (window period or no window period). I'm sorry if prev. letter sounded harsh, but my opinion remains similar to the one expressed in the prev. posting. __________________________ Hoping that this calms tension against me. __________________________ SKARON@Eagle.wes.edu
Jack.Bowman@f38.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Bowman) (10/06/89)
I saw and listened very carefully to that 60 minutes broadcast. When you set
aside all of the sensationalism you are left with the following points:
1> Doctors in private practice are not in any way forced to deal with known
HIV+ patients.
2> San Francisco General (where Dr. Day was practicing) is a PUBLIC hospital
supported by tax dollars. They have a public policy which requires that they
treat ALL who are admitted. Most large cities have at least one Public
hospital.
3> Dr. Day is not and has never been forced to practice at that hospital. She
can leave that public hospital and practice in a private institution. She does
not have to leave the profession to avoid contact with HIV+ patients.
4> She appears to have a very valid concern (especially the atomized blood
problem caused by drilling) that the Federal government could and should
develop better protective devices rather than downplay the risk which is
partially unknown at this time.
The Federal Government is famous for downplaying risks to health. Just look at
all the nuclear and chemical risks that were downplayed in the past.
That segment could have been a sixty second blast if all the hoopla was
dispensed with but then 60 minutes _is_ an entertainment program.
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!135!38!Jack.Bowman
Internet: Jack.Bowman@f38.n135.z1.fidonet.org