OB/GYN at a local hospital is HIV-positive

Taroth said:I don't want people thinking I'm becoming paranoid... but how much AIDS actually exists?
I mean, we had Olena Popikov, and then there was that pub owner in San Francisco whose status was kept strictly under wraps until he eventually succumbed to AIDS—all while juggling two girlfriends at the time.

A few years ago, I conducted research on this topic, and back then, there wasn't a single reported case of an infected healthcare worker in the US. (Though, to be fair, the study focused specifically on protecting medical staff from contracting illnesses while treating patients.)
At that time, as a developing nation, the US had relatively few AIDS cases, and the demographic breakdown followed a typical emerging-market pattern regarding infection rates:
- intravenous drug users
- homosexual men
- individuals engaging in promiscuous behavior or prostitution
- people who received contaminated blood via transfusion (before voluntary donor screening for HIV became standard), spouses of those infected, and children infected via the placenta or during childbirth.

A significant number of those infected were part of groups like merchant marines working on transoceanic vessels; there was also a higher concentration of cases in coastal cities, particularly major ports.

In Western nations, the majority of infections occurred among homosexual men. Back then, in what was known across Europe, there was only one famous case involving an Austrian dentist who, being gay himself, contracted the virus and then intentionally infected about 20 of his patients.

As for whether anything has changed since then, I couldn't say. There are likely more recent studies out there; perhaps you should Google it if you're truly curious.

Regardless, HIV itself is quite sensitive to external factors. It is actually easier to prevent HIV transmission than it is for Hepatitis C (which causes hepatocellular carcinoma, a condition people seem significantly less afraid of). The standard disinfectants used in hospitals contain virucidal agents that destroy both viruses. And, of course, using gloves and masks is non-negotiable.
When I worked with AIDS patients, I followed all proper protocols (hand washing, gloves, etc.). I did not contract it. 😉

kemik said:Why are you yelling and trying to turn this peaceful thread into a fight? Why can't you just state your opinion politely like everyone else, without all the accusations and shouting?

Who's yelling?
I stated my opinion clearly and critically. I actually backed mine up with arguments, unlike most people here who just babble without any proof. You know, like journalists.

The media absolutely lives for sensationalism. They slap on some bombastic headline and, naturally, everyone starts panicking—mostly because people just aren't informed enough yet. I guess you could look at the whole situation with Emma (was that her name?). Most parents wouldn't even let their kid sit in the same classroom as her because they don't actually understand how transmission works.

Even Kate Garcia2 laid it out perfectly.
🙂

kemik said:Oh, so who actually turned out to be clairvoyant then? 🙂 six doctors were WHO

Well, isn't that just groundbreaking news.

kemik said:We need to find a model where doctors can actually do their jobs without being exposed to open blood. It’s a matter of logistics. Some specialists, like orthopedic surgeons, aren't really at high risk, so they could stay put. Others might be better suited for infectious disease wards, working specifically with patients who have WHO status or AIDS Foundation conditions. Even the proposal regarding early retirement shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Obviously, this requires everyone to be at the table. You can't force this kind of change through; you need dialogue and a consensus.

Personally, I wouldn't want a doctor with WHO status performing surgery on me, and if I knew their status, I'd try to prevent it. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind someone with the same diagnosis treating my busted knee.

I COMPLETELY DISAGREE!

Why don't you just retire early yourself? Go work in isolation!

Patients living with AIDS have a right to a normal life, quality medical care, and privacy!!!!!!!

And so do doctors.

If you're going to reject a WHO doctor, what's next? Are you rejecting gay doctors? Bisexual doctors? Black doctors? Doctors with Hepatitis B? Doctors with prostate cancer?

You have no right to their private medical data. As long as they do their job properly and follow safety protocols, their business is none of yours.

Just like your sexual orientation is none of their business.

I'm reacting strongly because this kind of baseless stigmatization is disgusting.

There.

Fine, let's just go ahead and publish everyone's full names, home addresses, and Social Security numbers right on the front page, shall we? Let's brand every single person living with AIDS or who is WHO positive right on their forehead. After all, my patients aren't obligated to disclose their status to me, and even if they do, I can't exactly turn them away—and if I happen to get infected, I’m the one who gets blamed for not being "careful" enough. 🙄

I suppose if we do that, we might actually succeed in significantly lowering the infection rates across the US, wouldn't we? 😁

USA!🙄

Just so we're clear, a spouse is under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to disclose their medical status or a positive diagnosis to their partner—it’s entirely up to their own conscience. Honestly, how many people actually choose to tell their spouses? Furthermore, a doctor has absolutely no right to leak a patient's private data to the public. Just for information... 😁

Kate Garcia2 said:Just so we're clear, a spouse isn't legally obligated to tell their partner they're sick or positive (it's basically left up to them—I mean, how many people actually tell their wives everything?)

I guess I'd personally push for jail time👎

I mean, I don't think the real issue is whether that doctor is a "healthy" person who isn't going to spread anything. It’s more about those specific groups of people who actually know they're sick and just go around spreading it anyway—like that cafe owner situation we heard about... honestly, I feel like those types are way more dangerous than some single doctor or anyone else who's just living their life normally.

As for intentionally passing a disease to someone else, that's a straight-up criminal offense. You're looking at years in prison if you purposefully spread an illness like that.

So, I was recently stuck on an operating table in some hospital over in Chicago

and honestly, I’m just dying to know if anyone on the staff there is WHO

It’s easy to sit back and act like you’re perfect when your own life isn't on the line.
The doctor involved in this situation was an OBGYN.
For instance, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable at all having a WHO-positive doctor handle my delivery.
Sure, the risk of transmission is slim, but it's still a real possibility.
And how many of you "perfect" people would be okay with a WHO-positive surgeon operating on your child?
Do you really believe a parent shouldn't be informed about that?

I honestly believe every patient has the right to know if their doctor is dealing with any infectious disease. To me, that just seems fair and honest.

Hannah Scott69 said:You don't actually have any right to his private information! Honestly, let him do whatever he wants at home—as long as he's crushing it at work and staying safe, I really don't think it's anyone else's business.

Can anyone actually guarantee that someone else is doing their job right? I mean, honestly!
Protecting yourself is huge, but don't forget to look out for everyone else too! It’s all about that collective safety.
I think this should be a top priority—it feels like it’s really about looking out for everyone else!

Hannah Scott69 said:Who's yelling?

Seriously, it's wild that you don't realize typing in all caps means you're screaming in the digital world. ☕

Hannah Scott69 said:If you’re going to reject a doctor who is WHO positive, what’s next? Are you going to turn away a gay doctor? A bisexual one? A Black doctor? An African American doctor? Someone with Hepatitis B? Or maybe someone with prostate cancer?

.

Look, I'll pass on anyone I suspect might jeopardize my health through some mindless oversight... because if there's even a chance for a mistake to happen, then I should have the right to choose...

Honestly, I think the most ethical move would be for that doctor to proactively ask for a transfer to a department or a role where there’s zero risk of them getting injured and accidentally passing an infection to a patient.

Look, even gynecologists and surgeons face risks—like a scalpel slipping and cutting the doctor, which leads to contact with an open wound—and medical ethics basically dictate that a physician shouldn't put their patients at risk.

It’s a totally different story when you talk about the obligation to treat the sick; a doctor chooses this profession knowing full well the dangers involved, and they took the Hippocratic Oath for a reason.

Patients aren't responsible for looking out for the doctor. Besides, if a doctor loses their sight, nobody would let them perform surgery anyway; they’d either be moved to a suitable position or forced into retirement.

Someone suggested working with patients who have WHO status, and maybe that’s actually a viable solution? It might make a doctor even more empathetic and better equipped to understand those patients.

Or maybe a career in the pharmaceutical industry? It’s all pretty much within their field of expertise.
There is always a way to ensure the doctor stays safe while keeping the patient protected too.

I would never, ever allow a doctor with WHO status to operate on my child. As for myself? Well, I might give it some thought.

brisknomad6 said:I was recently under the knife at a hospital in Chicago

and I honestly wish I knew if any of the staff were WHO positive.

That’s none of your damn business. Just like it’s none of my business whether you have AIDS or who you’re sleeping with.
😈

Suddenly everyone thinks they're an expert. I'm done repeating myself on this topic. I said what I had to say; if you didn't get it, that's on you.

People here just want to crucify someone. Nobody cares when a mayor pockets a few million from a deal. Nobody cares that our kids aren't being raised right and are basically left to the streets. Nobody even cared when a junkie attacked me right in front of my building. 😢

Nobody cares that women with AIDS in Africa—even pregnant women—were given nothing but placebos. Nobody cares that our healthcare system is a total wreck. 😢

Nobody cares that TWO YOUNG GUYS committed suicide today. 😢

Nobody cares about the veterans who fought for this country being sent home in body bags, living like outcasts in society. 😢

Nobody cares about anything.

You all just want a mob to lynch someone.

If people actually worked harder, we’d all be better off.
If we actually showed some compassion, things would improve.

And regarding AIDS... nobody needs to care about a doctor's private life. Let him have four mistresses, four yachts, AIDS, or hepatitis. What he does on his own time is none of your business. It doesn't matter what disease he has.

As long as he isn't protecting himself by endangering others, his lifestyle is his own concern.

Focus your energy on those intentionally spreading AIDS, or the addicts getting it through needles.

I see the rush to lynch the doctor is strong. It just proves how miserable and primitive this society really is.

Oh man, stop it...

Like, at that point, we wouldn't even care if they had Ebola or just some annoying case of mono...

I mean, I really wonder if you'd still be thinking that way if you were actually lying there on the operating table.

What on earth are you constantly whining about? ☕