This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

I heard....

||

Errrrrrm, would you be happy if your doctor had AIDs and was dealing with your insides?? The risk is negligible, but that risk exists... it makes sense if you think about it. It would scare ppl witless and really piss them off, most of society dont have a clue about these thigns and are like "oh no AIDs, he would so kill me with that!!", and govt enacts on the lines of public opinion (of that is the duty of government), so therefore it stands to reason it's banned.

Reply 2

Fireman John

9

Clearly, even with the very best will in the world, the risks are far rom negligible!!! Surgery is by it's very nature invasive. Sharp instruments are involved and the hazard of cross infection cannot be removed. I would suggest, however, that AIDS is not the ONLY infectious disease that would render a sugeon incapable of operating - I woul dimagine any number of infectious diseases are treated similarly.

Reply 3

Lewisy-boy

11

Exactly... it also shows that the surgeon wasn't very careful with his own self, so why the hell is he gonna be careful with you!!!?

Reply 4

Dimebag

Lewisy-boy

Exactly... it also shows that the surgeon wasn't very careful with his own self, so why the hell is he gonna be careful with you!!!?

*winces*

But I get your point!

Reply 5

Scotsman1988

1

Lewisy-boy

Exactly... it also shows that the surgeon wasn't very careful with his own self, so why the hell is he gonna be careful with you!!!?

It doesn’t necessarily show that. Granted, most people with Aids probably get it as an STI or through doing drugs, but SOME people get the infection by coming into contact with the blood of a person who they do not know has AIDs and by the very nature of their training it is very possible that a Doctor (or surgeon) could contract the disease quite innocently. While you could argue that (s)he is not being careful in that situation I'm sure that it wouldn't be seen in that sense in a scenario such as that. I'm not saying that this proves that surgeons should be allowed to operate, just that your point above is not strictly true.

Reply 6

Purple

15

Lewisy-boy

Exactly... it also shows that the surgeon wasn't very careful with his own self, so why the hell is he gonna be careful with you!!!?

It would hardly be the surgeons fault if their partner was having an affair, caught AIDS and passed it onto them would it.

Reply 7

ellewoods

10

1988

It doesn’t necessarily show that. Granted, most people with Aids probably get it as an STI or through doing drugs, but SOME people get the infection by coming into contact with the blood of a person who they do not know has AIDs and by the very nature of their training it is very possible that a Doctor (or surgeon) could contract the disease quite innocently. While you could argue that (s)he is not being careful in that situation I'm sure that it wouldn't be seen in that sense in a scenario such as that. I'm not saying that this proves that surgeons should be allowed to operate, just that your point above is not strictly true.

And by the very nature of their job, they could pass it onto their patients.

Reply 8

Lewisy-boy

11

Precisely, the risks are there... I wouldn't be happy with a Doctor shoving his hands inside me if he had AIDs (and I know how it can be passed), imagine putting that in front of someone who genuinely had no idea and was just told "he has a deadly disease which you could catch and die", ermmm no.

Reply 9

Fireman John

9

I don't think it's necessary to get to tie dup in detail with the AIDS/HIV issue. There are far more contagious/easily transferrable diseases out there that can be equally serious - Hep B and Hep C for starters... Whereas HIV/AIDS dies on contact with air, hence a dirty hypodermic (the outside of the needle at least) is rendered "safe" in terms of HIV transmission, that isn't the case with Hepatitis... the disease remains "live" for a long, long time even when exposed to air. So let's not assume that this only applies to HIV/AIDS - I'd be absolutly amazed if it didn't extend to a great many other diseases too.

Reply 10

Lewisy-boy

11

Yeah I think ur right. Someone else said this might be the case above, and it would make perfect sense.

Reply 11

Purple

15

Fireman John

I don't think it's necessary to get to tie dup in detail with the AIDS/HIV issue. There are far more contagious/easily transferrable diseases out there that can be equally serious - Hep B and Hep C for starters... Whereas HIV/AIDS dies on contact with air, hence a dirty hypodermic (the outside of the needle at least) is rendered "safe" in terms of HIV transmission, that isn't the case with Hepatitis... the disease remains "live" for a long, long time even when exposed to air. So let's not assume that this only applies to HIV/AIDS - I'd be absolutly amazed if it didn't extend to a great many other diseases too.