Hannah Scott69 said:Whether someone (any person) has IBM or not is a private matter. Just like any other illness, it’s personal, and no one has the right to know unless that person chooses to share it (not even family, if they don't want to). Who are you to judge whether someone should work or not?
Not quite, Hannah Scott69. It isn't the same. If someone carries an
contagious disease, it’s simply wrong to spread it. Especially when we're talking about a
deadly condition with no cure. Honestly, it's bad enough when you show up to the office with the flu and "share" it with your coworkers, but IBM is a much heavier burden.
Keeping a family in the dark is deceptive, too. They could get infected, or perhaps—following the logic of our local churches—you think spouses shouldn't practice safe sex if one partner is positive? That doesn't sit right with me.
Hannah Scott69 said:What if a doctor contracted the IBM virus during surgery?
I PERSONALLY KNOW A DOCTOR WHO CAUGHT HEPATITIS DURING AN OPERATION!!!
Everything involves risk. It's a risk when you have unprotected sex and catch something, or when you drink from someone else's cup at a coffee shop, or kiss someone and end up with mono, or even just walking down the street and getting hit by a drunk driver...
It doesn't matter how they caught it; what matters is that they don't pass it on and endanger the lives and health of others.
Of course, everything carries risk. But it’s reasonable to minimize those risks and find a middle ground. You don't stop walking on the sidewalk because a drunk driver might hit you, but you also don't take unnecessary chances by sprinting across a busy interstate.
Hannah Scott69 said:WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE A HUMAN BEING?
IF YOU HAD A DISEASE, WOULD A DOCTOR HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TREATMENT? NO!!!!
I'm not judging anyone. I was merely suggesting that we provide them with a humane way out, like medical leave or early retirement. Would you really want to spend your final years grinding through an eight-hour workday when you know your time is limited?
The distinction is that a patient has the right to refuse treatment from a doctor they don't trust. By that same token, it should be fair for a patient to refuse surgery from someone carrying IBM. Following your logic, people with IBM should be allowed to donate blood without being tested.
I understand the fear of social backlash, which is why we need clear legal protections. If reporting is mandatory, then the state needs to guarantee disability or retirement benefits. Disclosing an IBM diagnosis can feel like professional suicide. We shouldn't force people to choose between putting food on the table and exposing patients to needless danger.
