Privacy versus Public Safety

**devonin** · 02-11-2008, 06:46 PM

I apologise in advance for being vague, but I'm constrained by the same privacy laws that I'm looking to see discussed.

An acquaintence of mine is a teacher, and recently found out that one of the parents of a student they teach had just died of AIDS.

This leads one to wonder whether the student is either HIV Positive or might have AIDS themself.

The thing is, privacy laws in the United States prohibit the school from asking whether the child has been tested, prohibit them from demanding that the child be tested, prohibit them from notifying any teacher or student that the possibility even exists, prohibit them from even asking generally of all parents looking to enroll children whether they have any contaiguous, communicable illness of any sort.

Even if it were to be openly stated by the parent voluntarily that the child was carrying HIV, any change in any way of the treatment of that child, even in terms of safety precautions would be legally discrimination and the people involved could be charged as such.

This leads to an interesting question of ethics for me. To what extent should someone's privacy be protected when that privacy puts other people at risk?

This isn't the same as asking someone's religion, or whether they are gay. This is a serious, communicable, terminal condition.

They'll completely ban peanut butter from a school of 3,000 because one student has a life-threatening allergy to peanut butter, and disclosing that isn't in any way considered a violation of their privacy, and yet one student who can put the entire school at risk of a terminal condition, all out of fear of being seen as disciminatory, isn't even allowed to result in the quiet notification of the school's -medical- staff, let alone the teachers, students, or parents.

What do you think? How important is someone's right to privacy in general? How important is it in the face of danger to those around them? How far should privacy rights extend? Is it discrimination to simply want to be informed of potential risks?

If you feel that privacy rights should extend as far as in the example above, how does that mesh with things like the sex offender registry? In that case, someone's privacy is being violated purely because those around them are seen as being at risk, how is that any different?

02-11-2008, 06:46 PM	#1
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 42 Posts: 10,120	Privacy versus Public Safety I apologise in advance for being vague, but I'm constrained by the same privacy laws that I'm looking to see discussed. An acquaintence of mine is a teacher, and recently found out that one of the parents of a student they teach had just died of AIDS. This leads one to wonder whether the student is either HIV Positive or might have AIDS themself. The thing is, privacy laws in the United States prohibit the school from asking whether the child has been tested, prohibit them from demanding that the child be tested, prohibit them from notifying any teacher or student that the possibility even exists, prohibit them from even asking generally of all parents looking to enroll children whether they have any contaiguous, communicable illness of any sort. Even if it were to be openly stated by the parent voluntarily that the child was carrying HIV, any change in any way of the treatment of that child, even in terms of safety precautions would be legally discrimination and the people involved could be charged as such. This leads to an interesting question of ethics for me. To what extent should someone's privacy be protected when that privacy puts other people at risk? This isn't the same as asking someone's religion, or whether they are gay. This is a serious, communicable, terminal condition. They'll completely ban peanut butter from a school of 3,000 because one student has a life-threatening allergy to peanut butter, and disclosing that isn't in any way considered a violation of their privacy, and yet one student who can put the entire school at risk of a terminal condition, all out of fear of being seen as disciminatory, isn't even allowed to result in the quiet notification of the school's -medical- staff, let alone the teachers, students, or parents. What do you think? How important is someone's right to privacy in general? How important is it in the face of danger to those around them? How far should privacy rights extend? Is it discrimination to simply want to be informed of potential risks? If you feel that privacy rights should extend as far as in the example above, how does that mesh with things like the sex offender registry? In that case, someone's privacy is being violated purely because those around them are seen as being at risk, how is that any different?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)