OB/GYN at a local hospital is HIV-positive

Kimberly Davis52 said:You've got a point there. 🙂
When people get sick, they stop working. It's just common sense. 🙂

My only real worry is that someone clever might try to spin it—claiming an HIV infection isn't actually a "disease" until those terminal AIDS symptoms finally kick in. That would be a dangerous lie. Even before anyone hits the AIDS stage, an HIV carrier is still infectious.

Look, someone living with HIV isn't "sick." From what I've read, once you get on antiretroviral meds, within about 4 to 6 months, the viral load in your blood drops significantly. Even if there's exposure through bodily fluids, the risk of transmission becomes incredibly low.
As for the surgeons, I highly doubt they're just spilling blood all over a patient's abdominal cavity. 😉

Justin Fox said:Things are looking pretty grim here. I'm thinking someone who is HIV positive might only have a few years before things really start to spiral, and honestly, there isn't a cure yet (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Sure, there’s treatment to slow things down and manage the symptoms—which, by the way, is ridiculously expensive—but we're talking about management, not a fix. It's highly likely that if a doctor tells a patient, "Hey, I'm HIV positive, is it okay if I treat you?" they're going to lose almost their entire patient base. From a purely cold, hard cash perspective, it’s definitely not in a doctor's best interest to disclose their status.

On the flip side, HIV is infectious. While the odds of passing it to a patient are slim, a doctor still faces risks through contact with open wounds or any instruments that might touch the patient's blood. Let's be real: the chances are low because you'd need direct contact between the doctor's blood or saliva and the patient's injured tissue—like when a surgeon accidentally nicks themselves during an operation. Still, even if the probability is small, an HIV-positive doctor is technically presenting a non-zero risk to a patient's health and life.

So, what takes priority? The safety and lives of the patients, or the doctor's right to keep working?

In my opinion, the smartest and most humane way to handle this is to just sidestep the whole debate entirely. If a doctor is HIV positive, they should probably be classified as medically unfit for duty and placed on medical leave. They could focus on their own health and actually enjoy whatever time they have left. Meanwhile, patients can be treated by people who don't carry a lethal virus.

Yeah, sure, it costs more than just keeping them on the clock, but it's safer for the patients and more compassionate for the sick doctor. At the end of the day, they simply aren't fit to work anymore. It's the same logic as a pilot dealing with something like mild epilepsy; you wouldn't put passengers at risk just to keep a pilot flying, and the same standard should apply to doctors.

I couldn't agree more. 👍

Hannah Scott69 said:If you’re going to reject an HIV+ doctor, what comes next? Are you rejecting a gay doctor? A bisexual one? A Black doctor? An African American doctor?

?!?!
Seriously? Being gay, bisexual, skin color, or where someone's from isn't a disease, for crying out loud.

Hannah Scott69 said:You don't have a right to their private medical info. As long as they do their job correctly and follow safety protocols, whatever they do at home is none of your business.

I think you’re totally missing the point here. There’s always a "factor X" involved. Obviously, a doctor living with HIV isn't going to *intentionally* infect a patient, but there's always that tiny, terrifying chance of an accidental nick during surgery where blood contact happens. That's the actual issue we're debating.

Dora said:Just so we're all clear here, a spouse isn't legally required to tell their partner they've been diagnosed with or are positive for 😁
.

I honestly cannot wrap my head around the idea that anyone would actually stay silent about something that malicious.
If you can't do that, you aren't a partner—you're just a criminal and a murderer.
The only way I could ever forgive someone for being that inhumane is if they were completely out of their mind.

Amanda Lee31, you think a surgeon actually has the right to turn away a patient just because they're HIV positive?

Kimberly Davis52 said:Amanda Lee31, do you think a surgeon actually has the right to turn away a patient who is HIV positive?

When are we going to finally wrap our heads around the fact that a surgeon is paid to perform surgery, and the patient—indirectly—is the one footing the bill?

Sure, a surgeon has the right to refuse to do their job: they can quit and go find another way to make a living.

Look, if a patient has the right to demand a certified surgeon instead of some guy with a razor or a butcher, then they also have the right to expect that surgeon isn't carrying HIV, which could be transmitted if an accident happens in the OR. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

And does this famous doctor actually have the right to know whether the patient he's operating on is HIV positive or not?

Justin Fox said:Look, just like a patient has every right to demand a certified surgeon instead of some random guy with a razor or a butcher knife, they also have the right to demand that the surgeon doesn't have HIV, which could be transmitted if an accident happens. Why is that so damn hard to wrap your head around?

Who gives them that right? What's the actual basis for that claim?

Justin Fox said:Look, a surgeon absolutely has the right to walk away from a job. If they don't want to do it, fine—they can quit and go find some other way to pay the bills.

I'm not 100% sure on the legalities, but I'm pretty certain patients have the right to say "no thanks" to surgery too.

Hannah Scott69 said:I honestly don't get why everyone is constantly obsessing over the fact that I'm a med student (not that it matters since I'm graduating in like a month anyway 😬).

But seriously, I think you guys aren't being critical enough in your reasoning.

It actually scares the hell out of me thinking some girl like you might hook up with a doctor who’s carrying something infectious (and didn't bother to mention it), and then he drops the news right in the middle of surgery... You'd probably lose your mind and go totally berserk on him with a scalpel; just leaving the whole OR covered in blood. Look, you're a woman, but people like you are—to put it bluntly—just a little too naive.

Do you even grasp that as long as there is even a tiny chance someone gets infected—even if it's one in a million—that information *has* to be shared. Everything else is secondary...

Ava said:Well, she’s acting out because she’s a med student...

So does being a med student mean her opinion is automatically gospel? 👎 Or did she just get called out because, eventually, someone is going to question whether her own health affects her ability to do the job?

Look, you're entitled to your opinion, but the idea that someone's illness is strictly their own business doesn't hold up here. From a legal standpoint (without me digging through the Constitution for the specific clause): individual liberty ends where another person's rights begin. That means no one gets to exercise their right—in this case, privacy—if it violates the rights of another, like a patient's right to be informed of potential risks.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a doctor with HIV if it was a routine checkup that didn't involve high-risk contact (so, excluding dentists, surgeons, or OB-GYNs), and maybe even for something minor like a visit to an esthetician.

And seriously, who else besides Hannah Scott69 would compare HIV/AIDS to having sex with a Black man?

Look, there’s still a chance of infection if you're in a wreck—like if a semi slams into your bus and there's blood everywhere from you and an HIV-positive passenger.

Are you seriously telling me you can't see the massive difference between a doctor performing surgery on a patient and some idiot crashing a car into a bus and a streetcar? Like, come on...

From what I can gather, as long as there’s even a tiny chance an HIV-positive person could pass it on, that second person's right to know absolutely trumps the infected person's right to privacy.

Or am I totally missing the point here?

Kimberly Davis52 said:From what I can gather, as long as there’s even a tiny chance an HIV-positive person could pass it on, that second person's right to know totally outweighs the patient's right to privacy.

Am I reading that wrong?

Totally agree with you!
That info needs to be shared—after that, whatever the patient, doctor, or partner decides to do is up to them...

Maybe I'm being too intense, or maybe I'm just a bit much,
but if there was even a microscopic, one-in-a-million chance my daughter could get infected during surgery, I would personally give that doctor a piece of my mind regarding "privacy."
Honestly, screw that, that's just how I feel!

jadesailor14, I'm with you on this one.

I love being American. Just thought I'd say that. Thanks.

Black people?!

Hannah Scott69 said:I'm just disgusted by Americans. That's all. Thanks.

I'd be happy to point you toward the nearest border crossing and 👋

I'm guessing
- you didn't find it "disgusting" to get an education funded by American taxpayers?
- you'll suddenly lose that disgust when you need a doctor?
- you still want to claim you're enlightened and open-minded?