HIV-positive toddler banned from RV park's pool

[Shinji_]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

i feel bad for the toddler but i agree with the owner. he did the right thing trying to keep everyone safe

 

[Jaimes]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Not only that, but even if the kid did bleed, HIV is destroyed if it comes in contact with water, let alone chlorine.

 

[Craig²]

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~*!*~]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.