PDA

View Full Version : HIV-positive toddler banned from RV park's pool


Otter Mii-kun
July 9th, 2007, 09:08 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3356281

I see NO reason for this as HIV isn't contagious by casual means (only if he was cut and bleeding and had contact with someone else)
Looks to be a racial issue too.

Ullion
July 9th, 2007, 10:41 PM
Personally, I agree with what the park owner did. He may have not known everything about HIV/AIDS and its form of spreading. Since he didn't know, he did the best choice, which is to ensure everyones safety by preventing the 2 year old to go in the pool.

And personally, the line about "Oh, it wasn't the babies fault that he got HIV"
THAT DOESN'T MATTER! He has it now, no need to put blame on people. That line was just pointless and just aggrevating.

And it is quite easy to get cut at a swimming pool, I do it almost everytime I'm there. Then again, I'm not very careful when I do things. Also, the baby is two years old, he shouldn't be swimming in full-sized pools anyways. Maybe wading pools.

So all in all, with the given situation, I believe the owner did the right thing.

Gary, the Magic Fairy
July 10th, 2007, 12:05 AM
I'll bet there is a way to get HIV from a pool &/or shower. I've been cut in a pool before. I assume it happens quite often. Especially to children.

I don't see why they're complaining about the lack of 'education'. They're an RV PARK, not a hospital.

Did they really need to put in the life expectancy for them?
Failed pity attempt. :\

I totally agree with what the park owner did. If I was in his situation, I would throw 'em out, too.

Alter Ego
July 10th, 2007, 12:50 AM
Yeah, mentioning the life expectancies (especially the foster-father's. I mean, wtf dudes? I thought this was about the child? How does the foster-father's lifespan complicate matters? o.O) were a pretty pathetic guilt trip in my opinion. Also, the quote about innocence was completely irrelevant to the issue. Like Killer-Swift said: it doesn't matter how he got HIV; the issue is that he does have it and thus it should be made sure that no-one else gets contaminated. Besides, if you look at the park owner's comment then a simple paper from a doctor saying it was a-okay (As that quote near the end claims it to be) would have been enough to settle the matter. :\

So yeah, based solely on that article I agree with the park owner's decision. Not ruling out racial issues as a side-motive, but there isn't any evidence of it there. If you don't know whether or not allowing one person to get into the pool will saddle the others with a medical condition that will stay for the rest of their lives then the only responsible thing to do is not to take that risk.

Happy Dude
July 10th, 2007, 01:24 AM
I'd Of Done the Exact Same thing as the park Owner.

Fully Grown adults accidently cut themselves in pools. Heck a 2 year old kid would even be more likely too it...And say if another Little child was to come into contact with him it would spread.

The park Owner made the Right decision....Still wondering where being racist comes into this though..Care to explain?

aRedMoon
July 10th, 2007, 01:40 AM
I agree completely with the owner, especially when he knew as little as he did. Better safe than sorry, right?

Imagine if HIV was passable through water, and it was given to all the other guests. Who would be in trouble then? The owner. He was doing it to potentially save his guests, and himself. Nothing wrong with that.

Gunn
July 10th, 2007, 06:45 AM
The owner may have been ignorant but it is obvious precautions were taken place.

Amachi
July 10th, 2007, 07:02 AM
It saddens me that they had to do such a thing to the child, but one cannot argue that it was not done for the well being of everyone else, though not being allowed to use the shower is somewhat extreme.

Hopefully the owners educate themselves though just so nothing like this happens again

Otter Mii-kun, can you point out how it seems to be a racial issue as well? I don't see anything that would imply that.

Still, as others have mentioned it was an attempt to lay the guilt trip upon the owners in attempt to sensationalise the story a bit.

I like this article though, seems useful for my English studies XD;

Chuchino
July 10th, 2007, 08:33 AM
The fact that he was banned from the shower was the most ridiculous thing, I think :/

However, this article villainizes the owner in a way he doesn't deserve. If you can imagine, the average Joe would probably be terrified to swim with an HIV positive kid, and the owner wanted to avoid that. It's understandable.

I don't agree with the fact that those who're HIV positive should be banned from pools and whatnot, but he IS just a child. Without proper supervision, plenty of things could go wrong.

Things like this happen everyday. While I do hope that ignorance of the issue will be corrected as time passes, I feel as though they grabbed hold of this story because of the circumstances. A two-year-old, a sick father.. I do pity them, but I wish they hadn't made it seem so good vs. evil. It wasn't that at all. :/

Jaimes
July 11th, 2007, 03:55 AM
Actually, I feel the park owner was wrong and this issue has come about due to a mix of ignorance and paranoia. I also think that people who are agreeing with the decision also reflect this.

There is so much prejudice against people who carry HIV and even more ignorance about HIV and AIDS itself worldwide.

Firstly it is impossible to contract the virus through water.
Basically the HIV cannot survive outside in an environment like this. Not being allowed to shower is ridiculous.

Was it really the Park Owners job?
Not really. He should have consulted a medical specialist. Its a resort, there should be some on hand anyway. Why the park owner took this into his own hands is beyond me.

So basically, I dont think this was a necessary precaution to take. The Park Owner took over a situation of which was based on his paranoia against HIV. It appears he didnt even bother consulting a medical supervisor.

Gary, the Magic Fairy
July 11th, 2007, 09:08 AM
Actually, I feel the park owner was wrong and this issue has come about due to a mix of ignorance and paranoia. I also think that people who are agreeing with the decision also reflect this.He was trying to protect everyone in the park from getting HIV. WHY is that so 'wrong'? He's an RV Park owner, not a doctor. Why is ignorance of medical issues so wrong?

He should have consulted a medical specialist.
"We didn't know what the risk was. That's why we asked for something from their doctor or the county health department." Wtf?

Jaimes
July 11th, 2007, 09:48 AM
He was trying to protect everyone in the park from getting HIV. WHY is that so 'wrong'? He's an RV Park owner, not a doctor. Why is ignorance of medical issues so wrong?


Its not his job to 'protect the park'. He's an RV Park owner, not a superhero. He simply owns it.

Either way, why was he so sure that he was taking a precaution? RV Parks have qualified (ANYONE with a medical license) people that know about HIV, even most students know how the virus can be transmitted.
What I'm saying is that Ken Zadnichek should have consulted somebody himself rather than taking an impulsive and ignorant decision. It would have been easy to do.

"We didn't know what the risk was. That's why we asked for something from their doctor or the county health department."
So he asked for something.. But if you read on the second page of the article:

Medical experts said the HIV virus is unable to spread through casual contact.
"There's absolutely no way you can get HIV from a pool or a shower casual contact using the same facilities," said David Little, director of South Alabama CARES, an AIDS education and outreach organization that serves 12 counties in south Alabama. "It just doesn't happen."

Of which if that something was provided. The above or similar would be stated. It is more likely that since the family went on holiday, they would have travelled a distance and a simple statement was difficult to obtain, which could easily be found online.

RV park owner told them they weren't welcome after discovering their 2-year-old foster son had the HIV virus.
Some Americans are not educated enough about HIV.
"They don't know near enough, especially that children are totally innocent and represent no danger to the public," she said.

These two statements also in the article support my argument that the decision was based on a single persons lack of education and a biased opinion towards HIV/AIDS.

Gary, the Magic Fairy
July 11th, 2007, 02:35 PM
Its not his job to 'protect the park'. He's an RV Park owner, not a superhero. He simply owns it.It's not his job to know anything about HIV, either. Yet you seem to insist that it is, and that he should have consulted someone. As you said, "He simply owns it."


RV park owner told them they weren't welcome after discovering their 2-year-old foster son had the HIV virus.

Some Americans are not educated enough about HIV.
"They don't know near enough, especially that children are totally innocent and represent no danger to the public," she said.

These two statements also in the article support my argument that the decision was based on a single persons lack of education and a biased opinion towards HIV/AIDS.That's all the support you got? A misleading statement about how he supposedly just 'threw' them out of the park, and the biased opinion of the woman? Plus, what does the child's 'innocence' have to do with anything?

Jaimes
July 12th, 2007, 01:40 AM
I cant believe your still trying to argue back. lololol

It's not his job to know anything about HIV, either. Yet you seem to insist that it is, and that he should have consulted someone. As you said, "He simply owns it."

Exactly! (shot yourself in the foot there. pwnt). If he knows NOTHING about diseases, then why is he correct in deciding which precautions to take?
There are loads of people around him that could easily decide what to do (thanks for making me repeat myself though).


That's all the support you got? A misleading statement about how he supposedly just 'threw' them out of the park, and the biased opinion of the woman? Plus, what does the child's 'innocence' have to do with anything?
Erm No, thats obviously not all the support... :/ Pretty much the whole article supports my view.
I used those two comments that show how people today are uneducated about a pandemic and life threatening diseases.

Also the second statement is focusing on the first line: "Some Americans are not educated enough about HIV." This is clearly not a biased opinion of a woman, it's a total fact.
However what I have noticed is your interpretation IS biased. Are you saying that this child with HIV was a danger to the public? When he wasnt? This to me again, shows what prejudice people (and evidently you) have about HIV/AIDS based on the little knowledge they have.

HIV does have a bad reputation, mainly since it is unjustly associated with STDs, homosexuality, monkeys, prostitution, third world poverty etc. Just because someone is ill doesnt mean they should be ostracized from a society, when they are no threat to it.



Finally heres another simplified example. Say a boy, for example is born with a limb missing... It happens now and again. The headteacher is clueless about this and thinks to kick the boy out to prevent it being passed on. Would this be acceptable?
Obviously not. Because you and I know it is impossible for this problem to be transferred. He is not a threat to anyone. This shows that with a little bit of knowledge, how much a difference peoples decisions can make.

Cross
July 12th, 2007, 02:01 AM
The only thing that came to mind after that (And sorry if this offends) was:

"OLOL POOLS HAVE STDS".

Seriously though, that''s weird all around. ._o

Happy Dude
July 12th, 2007, 04:39 AM
"If he knows NOTHING about diseases, then why is he correct in deciding which precautions to take?"

Because He Owns the Park HE is The one who makes the decisions. Also Let's Say If the Child Did Cut Himself Somehow and another Kid came into Contact with the Blood And got sick? Who would be in Trouble? The Park Owner of course.

Although it is pointless to argue something That is already over

Edit : The Article Is obviously Sided with the Kid......I for one would Love to see What the Park owner's side of the story

Oh Btw " Its not his job to 'protect the park'. He's an RV Park owner, not a superhero. He simply owns it. "

Taken from the Article "I'm not responsible for their feelings. I'm responsible for the well-being of everybody in the park"

Well played But Pwned

Jaimes
July 12th, 2007, 05:12 AM
*sighs*


Because He Owns the Park HE is The one who makes the decisions. Also Let's Say If the Child Did Cut Himself Somehow and another Kid came into Contact with the Blood And got sick? Who would be in Trouble? The Park Owner of course.

The park owner was taking a precaution against the impossible occuring!?
Are you saying that people with HIV should be prevented from normal activities? That is 40+ million people!
There would probably be about 5 other people in the resort with it as well and about 25% of the adults would also be carrying an STI. A large percentage would even have other non-threatening illnesses (flu, diabetes etc). Should they have been removed from the park?
"Came into contact and got sick." That kind of reflects your knowledge on the issue. Before posting bigoted opinions, try to do a bit of research first.:)


Edit : The Article Is obviously Sided with the Kid......I for one would Love to see What the Park owner's side of the story
It does show the Owners side of the story. The article appears to side with the child, since he was victimized and the owner was wrong to do so.


Taken from the Article "I'm not responsible for their feelings. I'm responsible for the well-being of everybody in the park"
More realistically wouldnt that task be down to the supervisors in a resort? Yes, the owner is responsible, but not for passing medical decisions based on his own paranoia.

Although it is pointless to argue something That is already over
Hooray. A sensible comment at last. :D

Well played But Pwned
ROFL. Or Not.


Finally if you read the 300+ comments of the article:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/comments?type=story&id=3356281
Almost all of them side with my opinion, and yes they agree that the issue was caused by the owners igonrance and prejudice. Many of the comments also come from professional medical workers or people with HIV/AIDS themselves.


The only thing that came to mind after that (And sorry if this offends) was:

"OLOL POOLS HAVE STDS".
Lol, thats pretty harsh.
If it cheers you up, of the 23000 people who have registered on this site, unless a cure is discovered soon, over 130 of us are likely to contract the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. The chances of getting it are even more likely if you do not take correct precautions or if you have little knowledge.
Because the prevalence is so high, it is no reason to use it as a joking matter.
Also, well over 50% of us in our lifetime are going to come into contact with some sort of STI/STD.:classic:

.-'Infernal Hylian'-.
July 12th, 2007, 06:31 AM
i feel sorry for the little guy and also for his father only 18 months to live poor guy.

Gary, the Magic Fairy
July 12th, 2007, 10:47 AM
I cant believe your still trying to argue back. lolololUgh, fine. Forget it. You obviously won't change your opinions about how the owner is supposedly prejudiced and everyone with differing opinions is totally ignorant, so why should I even bother?
The poor family was totally wronged, the owner is a horrible man, and we're all morons. Whatever. ¬¬

Wtf does 'lololol' mean, anyway? :\

However what I have noticed is your interpretation IS biased. Are you saying that this child with HIV was a danger to the public? When he wasnt? This to me again, shows what prejudice people (and evidently you) have about HIV/AIDS based on the little knowledge they have.
Oh, and your prejudice against the uneducated is SO much better... you shouldn't just assume everyone is prejudiced, either.

Jaimes
July 12th, 2007, 11:37 AM
Ugh, fine. Forget it. You obviously won't change your opinions about how the owner is supposedly prejudiced and everyone with differing opinions is totally ignorant, so why should I even bother?
The poor family was totally wronged, the owner is a horrible man, and we're all morons. Whatever. ¬¬

I don't see how you can convince me to change my opinion, since your argument is total rubbish. All you've repeatedly said is that the owner was 'taking a precaution'.
I never once said the owner was horrible. Just that he had no idea about how to deal with the situation, was paranoid, prejudiced and evidently to lazy to do some research before taking a rash decision.
Also I never said anyone was a moron. Stop throwing around false accusations. I'm just arguing against your viewpoints, with a better and more logical argument.
If you think you are so right, why have so many people have felt and reacted so strongly to this? Why, out of the 300+ comments on the page do around 80% of them support the Glover family, when some of them carry HIV thereselves, some are doctors? Do you have any reason why your arguments are more valid? Why would Good Morning America, AOL and the Alabama Newspaper favour the family and bother to report on an issue if it was incorrect? (which as a news report, should be unbiased)?
To be blunt, it is quite obvious that the park owner was wrong. So far, the only support I have seen here are from people who are clearly quite uneducated about the HIV issue.


Oh, and your prejudice against the uneducated is SO much better... you shouldn't just assume everyone is prejudiced, either.
You do know what you wrote don't you? I'll just remind you:
A misleading statement about how he supposedly just 'threw' them out of the park, and the biased opinion of the woman?
The woman wrote in a single line paragraph: "Some Americans are not educated enough about HIV." How you can call this statement biased is simply beyond me. This simply shows me how unaware you are about the situation, since it is cold hard fact!? It begs me to question how much do you know about this virus?

Wtf does 'lololol' mean, anyway?
That was implying that I was laughing at your attempt to counter argue, with the SAME weak argument and point. Even though, that it was clear that the Park Owner was wrong, regardless if his intentions were good or not.

It is clear that some people are too stubborn to accept they were wrong.

Shinji_
July 16th, 2007, 06:15 AM
Yea my mom even read it and agrees with what the park did Said that if I was in the pool with that guy she'd grab me out so fast. I mean honestly it's not the parks fault the kid has Hiv Honestly it's just to make sure everyone is safe in the enviroment they can't take a risk of someone else getting such a deady disease.

Jaimes
July 16th, 2007, 06:31 AM
Yea my mom even read it and agrees with what the park did Said that if I was in the pool with that guy she'd grab me out so fast. I mean honestly it's not the parks fault the kid has Hiv Honestly it's just to make sure everyone is safe in the enviroment they can't take a risk of someone else getting such a deady disease.

Well that's fine for your mum to decide, since she's your parent and responsible for you. But again, this shows that your mum is unaware about how HIV transmits, taking you out of a pool wouldn't prevent you from catching it.

I'll put it in a different context, which everyone is more aware of, would your mum remove you from a pool with someone who was born missing a limb?
I seriously doubt it, since its not possible for this to be passed on, lots of people know that.
If someone did remove you, then you'd agree, it would be a ridiculous precaution being taken against the impossible from occuring. Which is exactly the case here.

Since so many people have HIV, the chances are that, yes, you've already been in a pool where a HIV carrier has also been. There is really no threat at all.

Ullion
July 16th, 2007, 05:34 PM
WIlso... I haven't read much more because tis just getting repititive.

So, Wilso... you think HIV CAN'T BE PASSED ON? You're quite the idiot then. You're right that it can't be apssed on through casual contact or through water. However, it CAN be passed on through blood which is quite likely to occur in a pool not to mention the fact that we ARE talking about a 2 year old. Being so young, the skin is soft and tender, easy to be cut and have blood spilt. Not to mention that since he is only 2 years old, he'll be less careful and is at a higher risk of getting an open wound.

kthxbai.

Melody
July 16th, 2007, 05:49 PM
WIlso... I haven't read much more because tis just getting repititive.

So, Wilso... you think HIV CAN'T BE PASSED ON? You're quite the idiot then. You're right that it can't be apssed on through casual contact or through water. However, it CAN be passed on through blood which is quite likely to occur in a pool not to mention the fact that we ARE talking about a 2 year old. Being so young, the skin is soft and tender, easy to be cut and have blood spilt. Not to mention that since he is only 2 years old, he'll be less careful and is at a higher risk of getting an open wound.

kthxbai.
Seriously, public pools have enough chlorine in them to kill the HIV virus.
It's impossible for you to get HIV from swimming with an infected individual. Allowing the park owners to be supported by anyone is a bad Idea! If the owner had researched HIV a bit more or even just read the label on the pool chemicals he uses he'd know that It's not possible to pass HIV at a public pool. Even if blood was spilled.

In order for HIV to spread to another individual they would have to directly touch the blood and then do something like touch one of their own healing wounds.
The chances of that happening is slim to zero. Especially if the child's parents were there. They know the dangers of HIV and they would be there to warn all comers away.

I think the RV park owner should have reasearched it more. He could have.
Some people dont understand that when you are in a position of power that you cant let your emotions or your predjudices rule your actions. I understand that he was concerned for his other guests but he could have called up a doctor and asked that question. Even a local hospital or another medical professional. Instead, he let his lack of knowledge and predjudice against HIV infected people rule his decision.

Rebellious Treecko
July 16th, 2007, 06:37 PM
I think it's a bit prejudice and kind of harsh to the toddler and parents, yet I also think that there could be some way of transmitting HIV in water, if by a cut.
I don't really know what to say about it.

Samurai X
July 16th, 2007, 06:50 PM
I totally agree with Killer-Swift and Kenji-kun. If he didn't know anything about how the virus is transmitted then it was his job to take that precaution. I also don't think it was his job to research it as it is not everyday you meet an HIV infected toddler at RV parks and actually know he has the virus. It was the parent's job to get the note from the doctor and get their toddler access to the pool and showers. Who cares if he "could have" researched, he isn't mandated to so therefore he doesn't have to. It doesn't even matter if it's impossible to pass it on in the pool, the only thing that matters is that he did what he thought was right in order to protect the safety of others.

black dog
July 16th, 2007, 06:52 PM
i feel bad for the toddler but i agree with the owner. he did the right thing trying to keep everyone safe

Jaimes
July 17th, 2007, 01:05 AM
WIlso... I haven't read much more because tis just getting repititive.

So, Wilso... you think HIV CAN'T BE PASSED ON? You're quite the idiot then. You're right that it can't be apssed on through casual contact or through water. However, it CAN be passed on through blood which is quite likely to occur in a pool not to mention the fact that we ARE talking about a 2 year old. Being so young, the skin is soft and tender, easy to be cut and have blood spilt. Not to mention that since he is only 2 years old, he'll be less careful and is at a higher risk of getting an open wound.


I'm the idiot? I'm a medical student. If you can't even be bothered to read anything scientific before throwing in a bigoted idea and insults, then you are a total moron..

If 2 people cut themselves, they would need to be holding there wounds next to each other for hours before the transmission to occur, since it would need litres for a decent quantity of blood and white blood cells to transmit and release a virus. Riiiiight, big chances of that happening in a swimming pool.

kthxnub.

Thankyou Poketrainer24, for actually having quite a lot of common sense and clearly knowledge for agreeing with my viewpoints.

yet I also think that there could be some way of transmitting HIV in water, if by a cut.
Nope it's totally, utterly impossible. Pools dont even need chlorine to prevent a HIV spreading, the water potential of the environment is too high for a human cell to even survive making it impossible for the virus to last a few seconds.

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 01:09 AM
But do remember, not everyone is a medical student.

So it's natural for people to take that caution. I'm not saying I agree with what the guy did, not at all, I'm just saying not everyone is educated enough to understand even what a RBC is.


[Red Blood Cell] Sorry I needed to let you know that I know what it is.

Astinus
July 17th, 2007, 01:54 AM
As xXScytherXx said, not everyone is a medical student. And just because you have the knowledge doesn't mean that you should think that everyone who doesn't know is a fool.

Besides, you don't know what age and time the park owner grew up in. There was a time when HIV was a scare, and no one knew anything about it. Perhaps the park owner grew up in this time, and that prejudice still lives inside of him, despite what knowledge has been gained. I know people who dislike certain cultures because of the time period they grew up in. It might be that the same could be said for the park owner. You grew up in a time when knowledge is present about HIV and could be taught to others.

The park owner was acting out of the best interest of the general public. As an owner of a public place, he has the duty to protect those who use his services. When a problem is brought to his attention he has to deal with it as he sees fit with the knowledge that he has. Yes, the knowledge might be limited. This is done in all sorts of services that cater to the public.

If he knows NOTHING about diseases, then why is he correct in deciding which precautions to take?
There are loads of people around him that could easily decide what to do (thanks for making me repeat myself though).
He's the voice of authority at the park. Who else are the employees of the park going to listen to? He's not going to let the pool boy make a decision that affects the park and its customers. The park owner is the boss of the park, and he is the only one to decide what is safe for the park and those who use its services. If you are going to say that a owner of a business has no say in how that business should be run, then you need to work in public service occupations.

People are biased about a lot of things. One reason for this bias is a lack of education. Another reason is because of the time period that the person grew up in. There are many reasons for prejudices to be formed in people.

Ah, but oh well. My main problem with this whole story is the article itself. It was written mainly to get pity for this family. The part about the love of trains, the part about the father only have months to live, and all the mentions of innocent children were just tossed in to gain pity and to make you feel for this family.

I sometimes hate being in a debating mood. :<

Tina
July 17th, 2007, 05:13 AM
I think everyone is missing something.

If this little boy was denied this pool access, then he shouldn't be allowed to go to water parks, amusement rides, even walk on the street - according to your logic, because he can get cut and bleed on someone.

One of my friends has HIV. She was born with it. We've gone to a public pool together. I don't have HIV. And neither do the hundreds of people that went to that pool.

Get over it. This little boy shouldn't have been kicked out. You're all freaking out for no reason.

Drifblim
July 17th, 2007, 05:17 AM
Not only that, but even if the kid did bleed, HIV is destroyed if it comes in contact with water, let alone chlorine.

Craig²
August 1st, 2007, 09:47 PM
That's a bit harsh. I don't agree with his actions whatsoever. He can't even argue that it was a safety percaussion. HIV isn't contagious, so I mean...What risk is he taking by allowing the child to swim there?

Secondly, I bet the community had a part in this. Some underedcated people (parents in paticular I guess) wouldn't want the child swimming in the pool thinking it could affect them or their kids ~

~*!*~Tatsujin Gosuto~*!*~
August 5th, 2007, 10:05 AM
who says the person in the pool doesn't have HIV. Any person in any pool could have it, you don't know all of the people, so we will just have to risk it. And the Chlorine in the water will kill the the bacteria anyways


:t354:TG

Fallen Angel_Messiah Of Black Roses
August 7th, 2007, 07:52 PM
Uh... HIV, It's not contaigous. Stupid person trying to single out a child because of medical condition, it's not going to effect anyone if they are near the child.

Me2UJus4Free
August 9th, 2007, 08:18 PM
But do remember, not everyone is a medical student.

I'm not a medical student, and I knew you couldn't get HIV by swimming in a pool. Surely, you must know it that's logic to come up with something as simple as: Kid with HIV cuts himself in a swimming pool+ Pools are cleaned with bleach + Bleach kills bacteria = Everything is fine. And if he did cut himself bad, the life guard will have a first aid kit complete with gloves so that he will not touch the boy's blood and instruct everybody not to touch him.

The RV park owner motives were based on prejudice, not for the "protect of the people".

Jaimes
August 10th, 2007, 03:42 PM
Hmm.. Just a slight update to this bit of news. Since I haven't had an argue for a while. ^^

Apparently they appear quite an influential power in the US, but the American Civil Liberties Union have taken quite an aggressive stance towards the matter.
Here is the ACLU link (http://www.aclu.org/hiv/discrim/30572prs20070716.html)

They wrote to the owner, an extract from the letter they sent I have put here:
We write to express our great concern over your recent actions against the Glovers and their foster son, who is HIV-positive. It is our understanding that you refused to permit the Glovers’ son to use Wales West pool and common bathing facilities based on obsolete and medically incorrect notions about how HIV is spread.

As you should be aware, medical experts have long concluded that HIV cannot be spread from the shared use of a swimming pool or common bathing facilities. Indeed, the Alabama Department of Public Health makes clear that, “You do not get HIV from an HIV-infected person by working together, playing sports, shaking hands, hugging, closed-mouth kissing, sharing drinking glasses, eating utensils or towels, using the same wash water or toilet, swimming in the same pool, or coming in contact with their sneezes, coughs, tears or sweat.” See “Basic Facts About HIV and AIDS,” available at www.adph.org/aids/assets/HIVAIDSFactSheet.pdf.

Moreover, as a provider of a public accommodation, you should be aware that the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits Wales West from discriminating against a person with a disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182. The Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice offers the following examples of illegal discrimination under the ADA:

• A dentist who categorically refused to treat all persons with HIV/AIDS;
• A moving company that refused to move the belongings of a person who had AIDS, or that refused to move the belongings of a person whose neighbor had AIDS;
• A health club that charged extra fees to persons who were HIV-positive, or that prohibited HIV-positive members from using the steam room or sauna, or that limited the hours during which HIV-positive members could use the clubs facilities;
• A day care center that categorically refused admission to HIV-positive children or the children of HIV-positive mothers; 2
• A funeral home that refused to provide funeral services for a person who died from AIDS-related complications; and
• A building owner who refused to lease space to a not-for-profit organization that
provided services to persons living with HIV/AIDS.

Your refusal to provide the Glovers’ son with full and equal access to Wales West’s facilities is no different.

Finally, the ADA prohibits public accommodations from imposing eligibility requirements that screen out or tend to screen out persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2). It was inappropriate for you to require that the Glovers provide a doctor’s note or letter from county health officials merely confirming what you should already know. As a provider of public accommodations subject to the ADA, it is your responsibility to be aware of your legal obligations as well as basic public health knowledge. It is further inappropriate to require your customers to provide sensitive and private medical information without a legitimate business purpose.

I added the underlining, because I feel that they are key points to consider concerning the issue (some of which haven't been discussed so far). The most significant being that it is nearly identical to similar situations regarding discrimination towards HIV and the law suits following.

So considering what the owner did was illegal (I'm not entirely familiar with US law), I wonder if that will change the viewpoints of other people.
Keeping in mind that the whole situation could have been avoided if the owner spent 5 minutes looking up HIV on Google.