|
|
#1 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
FFR Player
|
It's important to know whether this is a private school or not.
If it were a private school, this would be horrible. Wouldn't private rights extend to allowing the school, running on its own accord, to be able to ask if the child has been tested for HIV or anything like that? It would be more of a sacrifice of privacy, to me, than a protection of it because the schools are not allowed their rights to make their own decisions. However, you said in IM that this is a public school. That changes everything. Personally, this is one reason why I support the privatization of schools through a school voucher system. Controversial policies can be decided without public outcry-- only from the outcry of people who go to that school, and from there, can decide upon it by economic incentives, which will be corollaries to the preferences of parents in order to maximize profit and output. Right now, though, the system is made so everybody is stuck. It's too expensive to move from public schools, and public schools are monopolistic and, well, public, so they can't act on their own accord. Perhaps people with these illnesses can receive school vouchers if they please.
__________________
last.fm |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 370
|
I definitely think safety is more important than privacy, but privacy should also be respected. First, it would be very irresponsible of the remaining parent not to test themselves and the child for HIV/AIDS, and then (if the child had the virus) to inform them of the dangers and precautions they must take not to spread the virus.
Depending on the age and personality of the child (and the parents), another solution (as the teacher) might be to talk directly to the student, informing them of the risk and and suggesting they get tested if they haven't already.(I know that where I live it is free and privacy between the clinic and the patient is guaranteed of the results, and the fact they they even went to get tested.) As for the privacy at school, I think the school should know about the risk, and take precautions, but not make the info public. I can only imagine the rumors and gossip if the students knew that one of them had HIV/AIDS, especially because the virus is usually associated with sex. (although probably not in this case.) There is also the likelihood that paranoid parents might try to remove their child from the school. Last edited by dooey100; 02-11-2008 at 08:52 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
is against custom titles
|
Quote:
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Federal law protects freedom of speech. This forum is a private institution whose rules forbid certain kinds of speech that would be otherwise protected. If our private institution can mandate additional rules on top of federal law, why couldn't theirs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: it's a mystery oooo
Posts: 3,221
|
It's difficult to weigh the "proper" action, given that the amount of consequent discrimination is indeterminable, for the most part. Safety is always an important concern, especially when the situation in mind has the potential to escalate to literally fatal levels. And it's not like the case of search warrants, in which the law protects a dangerous criminal from being convicted based on information obtained through undue practices. In this particular instance, the social well-being of an individual is being given a higher priority than the physical well-being of an entire group. If a number of people, say thirty, are afflicted with illness because of the rights of one individual, it is nearly (though not quite) on the same plane as passively willful harm unto others. Furthermore, were such a thing to happen, instead of one person at risk of facing discrimination, you would then have thirty-one. What then? Laws of protection are not always the same as laws of prevention. I believe that the public has the right to know whether or not they are being endangered, but that the individual, in the event of testing positive, should be given certain rights, especially those that could (if possible) reduce or discourage mistreatment to an extent that a fair compromise could be achieved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
Resident One-Hander
|
Quote:
That said, if the said issue is inconsequential, then keep it confidential except to those who benefit from the information. If not, then disclose it to others. For example, I have Asperger's. It is a form of autism. All the kids I knew thought being autistic meant you were mentally retarded. While it impacted my social skills, it did not as much as it does for other less fortunate people. But since this information serves little purpose other than to let people understand my eccentricities, it deserves to remain private. If kids knew, it would give them a reason to make fun of me (Not that they don't =/). But even if the condition or secret would better be made public, the person has the right not to have it told, unless it is critically important that it is told. That's when it crosses the line from personal privacy to a matter of public safety. If a child has a peanut allergy, then it is primarily at the school's discretion to inform the school populace about his allergy. It would enable kids to know who is allergic, and to not bring anything with peanuts near him. This information could be potentially life-saving, even if a peanut ban is in effect (Huge amounts of products contain peanuts, some are bound to slip through). While this can be used against the kid, that is extremely rare, and not a legitimate thing to worry about. Now if a kid contains a serious disease, especially if it is transmittable through a clandestine fashion, then you have a responsibility to tell those around you. They could get sick from this person, or if he is in need of aid to, say, walk, then tell them. They'll help, even if isn't the majority of kids. And even if it isn't physically disabling, it is good to let them know, as it may be beneficial in the future (e.g asthma, if a kid has an asthma attack, kids can help him if he can't get his inhaler). In truth, it is up to those around the affected individual to warn others of his issues. Now the three cases above all have exceptions. If a kid has classic autism, then others can know about him, especially since he will be mentally handicapped (And very few kids are cruel enough to tease a mentally handicapped individual), and will understand why he is that way, thus being more tolerant of him. But if a person has a disease that will not affect him while controlled, like diabetes, then keep it private, as there is no reason to know. But since freedom of speech is a right, if the person wants others to know of his condition, he has every right to do so. But some things are kept private for the person's safety. For example, if a person is gay, and the people around him are homophobic (Which, sadly, is common), then keeping it a secret may be a matter of personal safety, physical or not. Concerning the individual's privacy, it is ultimately up to him whether he wants it private or not. The school/institution/workplace/etc, unless it is absolutely necessary, cannot force a person to keep X a secret. I will explain more in the next paragraph. But in almost all cases, if he wants it told, then he has a right to do have it told. Like I said earlier, freedom of speech isn't a privilege. It's a right. That person has the right to make it public. But there are exceptions. Some issues are of critical importance, and must be told regardless of the person's wishes. For example, if a repeating sex offender moves nearby, tell everybody! This person is dangerous, and he can target those who are defenseless, like children. And they cannot cal 911, or fight back. That issue is a matter of public safety and concern, and needs to be told to others, so they can prepare themselves as necessary for the issue at hand. If a person has a deadly spreadable disease, like ebola for example, then warn others. Quarantine the man if necessary. There is no privacy when it is life-threatening, and comprosmises other's well-being and safety. So the bottom line is, people have a right to safety. If they want to keep a secret, then they have a given right to keep it. The only exception is if this secret endangers the lives and/or well-being of others. People have a right to know and prepare for that which may harm them. After all, if I had tuberculosis, and I went near your child contagious, do I have the right to endanger your child's life? Do you deserve to be kept in the shadow? No. ~Bynary Fission |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Supreme Dictator For Life
|
I think the issue at hand is that not knowing if the student has AIDS does not affect the safety of the students while in school. With the privacy comes the responsibility of that student to disclose the private information if he/she finds himself in a situation where he know he/she can infect someone. For that reason he should get tested for his own sake and the sake of those around him/her, but I suppose you can't legally force him/her to get tested. In this case it really falls on this student to act as if he is infected and must act accordingly.
__________________
Back to "Back to Earth" Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
Private institutions can have their own rules as long as they don't counter things in federal law.
There's an interesting parallel, I think, that has yet to be mentioned in this discussion between the peanut allergy kid and the AIDS kid. In both cases, it is the rights of the individual which are being put first before the rights of the group. Maybe that's just in this comparison, but it seems to me that that's largely the way North America's fighting discrimination. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
It seems to me that to be consistant, the correct course would be that they -must- disclose any communicable conditions they have because the group is the one in danger (And realistically you can't trust the kids to be suitably careful. If the kid who "might" have AIDS falls and skins their knee, I'm not expecting most kids to think abot blood-borne pathogens and stay well away) I'm all for individual rights, I'm all for right to privacy, but not when the privacy puts others in danger. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
Just to get it out of the way, I'm not sure where I actually stand on this issue (which is pretty usual for me).
I wouldn't say that the law is that inconsistent with other things. It seems that what's being put ahead of safety in this case is individual rights. The right of privacy is what's being protected, probably out of fear that the child will be shunned. I can totally see the child being shunned, but I could also see people being very understanding. Especially kids...kids are either cruel or very empathetic it seems. However, even without the fear of discrimination, there is still a very strong stand for privacy in the US. (As an aside, as a measure to prevent discrimination, this seems quite backwards. Most successful anti-discrimination movements involve throwing the facts in society's face and making them accept it.) Also in this, what is the chance that a child with AIDS will actually pass it on? Probably not very high, but given the severity of the outcome, it does make sense to probably have to disclose that information. However, the number of children likely to get AIDS from one child is likely still awfully low compared to other instances where the government has taken a step into breeching privacy. Take the strictness of flying, that you must have all your belongings checked. If even 1 person were to hi-jack a plane, everyone on the plane's basically toast; immediately. And it's not like the severity of the rules for flying were unprovoked; the threat is/was very real. If 1 other child got AIDS, the effects might not be seen for years. By that time, we might've found a cure. Also, one's belonging's aren't usually as personal as one's health or body. The point I'm trying to make is that even though it seems like the US is turning into a controlled state, individual rights are obviously being placed above that of society, which IS consistent with the US's history, as well as the stereotype of American values. Although, for what it's worth, I'm rather surprised at hearing about that law. I had no idea it existed, and it does immediately seem inconsistent. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
FFR Player
|
I think that for a very simple solution to the question at hand is to have the student talk to a guidance counselor or school psychiatrist about their situation and the responsibility the student has if they do have the disease. I think that if the consequences are throughly explained to the student with the addition of their parent just had died from it the student will inherently take up a certain level of responsibility.
If you think about the idea of 'word of mouth' information exchange if the information was disclosed to ANYONE who isnt apart of helping the problem then the child in question would likely be scarred for life and tormented by the possible things that could happen if word got out to the student populace. So i believe that if the proper precautions are taken such as the idea i proposed above then there is no need to leak information that is more damaging than helpful. As far as the moral question of privacy versus general safety i am indifferent as i think that it varies in each specific situation. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
The Chill Keeper
|
I believe that this person has every right to keep it completely secret. HIV is something that is a personal problem and they should be allowed to keep it as such, personal. I do believe that if the child is HIV positive and knows that they are, they have a personal responsibility to tell their partner later in life if they decide to get intimate. It would be immoral to have sex with your partner and not tell them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 | ||
|
Resident One-Hander
|
Quote:
Yes, if you want to keep something a secret, but it should not be kept simply because it compromises the safety of others, then at least tell those who could have an external impact upon the secret that is kept, and thus, the situation that accompanies it. Like you mentioned, a school psychologist and the like would be an excellent choice to reveal the secret to, so that they can follow with due action. Quote:
~Bynary Fission |
||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|